The Use and Function of Collective Trauma in Securitizing Acts the Role of Collective Traumas in Securitization in the American Gun Debate

Master Thesis The Use and Function of Collective Trauma in Securitizing Acts The Role of Collective Traumas in Securitization in the American Gun Debate

Jordi Nahumury S1605895 09-06-2016 Thesis Supervisor: Drs. C.W. Hijzen MA Second Reader: J.P. Sabou MSc Words: 36.600 (excl. Appendix)

1 |

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ...... 4

INTRODUCTION ...... 5 1.1 Academic and societal relevance ...... 6 1.2 Research question ...... 7 1.3 Reading guide ...... 7

BODY OF KNOWLEDGE ...... 8 2.1 Securitization ...... 8 2.1.1 Components of a securitizing act ...... 9 2.1.2 Defining the concept of securitization ...... 10 2.1.3 Basic elements for success, intersubjectivity and additional facilitating conditions ...... 12 2.1.4 The role of context and audience ...... 14 2.2 Collective memory ...... 16 2.2.1 Presentism vs. path dependency ...... 17 2.2.2 Cultural memory and other terminology ...... 18 2.2.3 Collective memory, social context and the audience ...... 18 2.3 Trauma ...... 19 2.3.1 Historical origins of trauma ...... 19 2.3.2 Collective forms of trauma ...... 20 2.3.3 Collective trauma and securitization ...... 22 2.4 United States gun politics ...... 23 2.4.1 Policy development and legislation ...... 24 2.4.2 The two sides of the debate and the cultural groundings of their attitudes ...... 26

RESEARCH DESIGN ...... 30 3.1 Operationalisation ...... 30 3.1.1 Concepts and definitions ...... 30 3.1.2 Indicators for the concept of securitization ...... 31

2 |

3.1.3 Indicators for the concept of collective trauma ...... 32 3.1.4 Type of research ...... 35 3.1.5 Methodology ...... 36 3.2 Case study ...... 38 3.2.1 Type ...... 38 3.2.2 Sampling and legitimation ...... 39 3.2.3 Data collection ...... 39

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ...... 42 4.1 Findings and analysis...... 42 4.1.1 First unit of analysis: Period around the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (Jan. 24, 2013) and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (Apr. 11, 2013) ...... 43 4.1.2 Second unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (Sept. 16, 2013) ..... 48 4.1.3 Third unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015) ...... 53 4.1.4 Fourth unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015) ...... 58 4.1.5 Fifth unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (Dec. 2, 2015) ...... 61 4.1.6 Sixth unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016) ...... 66

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ...... 71 5.1 Conclusion ...... 71 5.1.1 Answering the research question ...... 71 5.1.2 Reflections ...... 74 5.2 Discussion ...... 76 5.2.1 Insights and practical recommendations ...... 76 5.2.2 Strengths, limitations and recommendations for further research ...... 78

REFERENCES ...... 80

APPENDIX ...... 87 A. Texts of the first unit of analysis ...... 87 B. Texts of the second unit of analysis ...... 118 C. Texts of the third unit of analysis ...... 144 D. Texts of the fourth unit of analysis ...... 167 E. Texts of the fifth unit of analysis ...... 193 F. Texts of the sixth unit of analysis ...... 211

3 |

LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1 An overview of the units of analysis and data collection of both sides 41

Table 4.1 An overview of the securitizing texts of the first unit of analysis 43

Table 4.2 An overview of the securitizing texts of the second unit of analysis 48

Table 4.3 An overview of the securitizing texts of the third unit of analysis 53

Table 4.4 An overview of the securitizing texts of the fourth unit of analysis 59

Table 4.5 An overview of the securitizing texts of the fifth unit of analysis 61

Table 4.6 An overview of the securitizing texts of the sixth unit of analysis 69

4 |

INTRODUCTION

“That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one. (Applause.) To prove that the vast majority of Americans, even if our voices aren’t always the loudest or most extreme, care enough about a little boy like Daniel [Barden, shot and killed in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting,] to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children.” - Barack Obama, January 5, 2016 (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5) -

The strategic, political practice of securitization takes place in a situation where the future is undetermined and still subject of debate. It is a practice where the audience has to be convinced that a certain issue poses a threat that is serious enough to impose a certain policy action (Balzacq, 2005, p. 173). Politicians with diverging beliefs, ideas, and understandings of the past try to perform their securitizing act successfully, thereby competing with conflicting moves by their political opponents. In a single political debate, multiple issues can be presented by various securitizing actors as an existential threat, combined with different policy or legislative solutions. To win over the public and make their political battles relatively easier with the backing of democratic support, politicians have to find ways to optimize their securitization efforts and to approach the audience the right way. The quote of President Barack Obama at the beginning of this chapter is part of a larger speech act, where he tries to securitize the ineffectiveness of current gun legislation. These particular sentences are part of his effort to get the support from the American people for the changes he wants to implement in American gun legislation. The quote shows his use of a collective trauma to win over the people. He makes his appeal to the public by referring to the tragic case of Daniel Barden, a little boy who was brutally massacred, along with 26 fellow classmates, teachers, and other members of the staff, at the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. The addition of this collective traumatic experience to his securitizing discourse makes it an emotional appeal, aimed at uniting Americans and creating a sense of urgency to take action. This example from American political practice shows that political actors are not reluctant to use experiences and events from the collective memory to enhance their securitizing

5 | acts, when they think this helps to convince the public of their cause. This brings us to the topic of this research of how aspects of the collective memory of people can influence securitization of a particular political debate. More specifically, the focus of this study is what the role of collective traumas, that have their place within the collective memory, is in the securitizing acts of securitizing actors. How are collective traumas used by them in their texts and what function do these traumas have in their discourse? The political debate, that forms the case in this research, corresponds with the quote and entails a period in the gun debate in the political arena of the United States. From a securitization perspective, this debate is about the securitization of gun control versus the securitization of gun rights and Second Amendment rights.

1.1 Academic and societal relevance

Securitization theory, as an area of knowledge, is closely linked to the multidisciplinary field of crisis and security management. This research connects to this theory and its body of literature. The general aim of the Copenhagen School, who coined the term ‘securitization’, is to understand why certain issues are becoming a security problem and others are not (Balzacq, 2005, p. 176; Williams, 2003, p. 511). Their concept of ‘securitization’ entails that an issue becomes a security issue because it is presented by a securitizing actor as a security issue in a so-called securitizing move (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 24). The Copenhagen School was criticized for their conception of ‘facilitating conditions’ within the securitization framework, which are factors that influence the effectiveness and success of an act of securitization. Although the scholars of the Copenhagen School have made an effort to define these conditions, this effort was, according to the critics, in many ways too narrow and neglected too many factors of influence (McDonald, 2008, p. 564). The role of context and the audience in a securitizing act are key factors that are undertheorized and relatively unexplored (McDonald, 2008, p. 564; Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, pp. 58-60). An exploration of the totality of the factors of context and audience is too broad for this type of study, but the exploration of a specific element of these two factors would be feasible. Therefore, this research will focus on the element of collective trauma in the zeitgeist of the context and in the collective memory of the audience. By applying the concept of collective trauma from trauma theory to the field of securitization, this study focuses at the role of collective trauma, that is part of these unexplored factors, in securitizing acts. The societal relevance of this research has to be found in an improvement of the awareness for and a better understanding of the use and function of collective trauma in the 6 | securitizing texts of politicians. The benefits for the practice of professionals are that they can optimize and improve their securitizing efforts by consciously taking into account collective trauma, gain a more complete understanding of the reaction of the audience and can predict and take into account the usage of collective trauma by their political opponents. For society as a whole and in specific the audiences of securitization the benefits are that they can better understand the securitizing discourses and constructs of the securitizing actors and can better anticipate to these acts. The practical benefits are not only applicable in relation to collective traumas of the past that have a place in the collective memory of people, but also are also applicable in anticipation of new events and incidents that entail a collective trauma.

1.2 Research question

The background to this research and the relevance that this explorative study tries to achieve lead to the following research question:

How and to what extent is collective trauma used and what is its function in the discourse of securitizing acts by political actors in the case of the American gun debate in the period between the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 and the presidential election race until early 2016?

1.3 Reading guide

The second chapter starts with an introduction and critical discussion of the various bodies of literature this research touches upon. An exploration of the fields of securitization theory, collective memory studies, trauma theory and American gun politics contribute to a more accurate notion of the position of this study with regard to these field and to a complete picture of the theme and research question. This sets the scene for the third chapter that entails the research design. The operationalisation and the case design are laid down in this chapter. Subsequently, the fourth chapter discusses the findings and analyses of results and the last two chapters comprise the conclusion and discussion.

7 |

BODY OF KNOWLEDGE

This chapter explains the analytical framework of this study by setting out and defining the relevant concepts that can be distilled from the various areas of knowledge that are part of this research. The first section introduces the Copenhagen School’s theory of securitization and describes the debate within the framework of securitization that is central to this study together with all of its relevant aspects. It discusses the definition of securitization, the components of a securitizing act and the factors of success before zooming in on the debate that revolves around the facilitating conditions, specifically the role of context and audience. The subsequent section describes the field of collective memory studies and discusses the concept of collective memory and its relation with the context and target audience of securitization. The third section of this chapter moves to a very specific area, that lies within the collective memory of every community of people, namely collective and national trauma. This section generally describes the field trauma theory and defines the concepts of collective and national trauma, after making a clear distinction between individual and collective trauma and discussing various forms of collective trauma. Finally, the last section gives an overview of gun politics and related law reform as a field of study in the United States and how this national debate between gun control and gun rights advocates developed over the years until January 24, 2013, when a bill was introduced in the Senate that was called the Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) of 2013.

2.1 Securitization

Over the past decades, social constructivist approaches have been gaining ground in the field of International Relations (IR). Social constructivism has increasingly challenged the traditional theories of realism and liberalism and has established itself as a bridge between the rationalist approaches and the interpretive approaches in the IR spectrum. In the field of security studies, a key area within International Relations, an important body of work on the social construction of security has been contributed by the so-called Copenhagen School. Ole Wæver (1995), one of the architects of the Copenhagen School, introduced the concept of securitization in the 1990s and this concept was developed further in Security: A New Framework for Analysis by Barry Buzan, Ole Wæver and Jaap de Wilde (1998). The aim of this newly developed

8 | securitization framework was to come to a better understanding of the social and political dynamics of security. These early works on securitization theory discussed the nature and meaning of the concept of security and the question of why some issues are turned into a security problem, whereas other issues do not receive public or political attention (Balzacq, 2005, p. 176; Williams, 2003, p. 511). The constructivist background of the Copenhagen School leads to a securitization approach that comprises the idea that the meaning of a concept, in this case security, is determined by its usage (Buzan, Wæver & De Wilde, 1998, p. 24). In other words, something becomes a security issue because it is presented in practice as a security issue through a so-called securitizing act and not because of its analytical or philosophic definition (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 24). The Copenhagen School rejects the traditionalist, state-centric notion that security is restricted to only the military and political sector and argues instead that it extends to the economic, societal and environmental sector (Buzan et al., 1998, p. vii; McDonald, 2008, p. 567; Vultee, 2010, p. 34). It is therefore not surprising that an important part of research in this field of study tries to define and identify the variety in the dynamics of securitizing acts in these different sector-specific contexts (Buzan et al., 1998, pp. 7-8; McDonald, 2008, p. 567). Consequently, the securitization framework has been applied in a variety of fields and contexts, ranging from health care to terrorism. Before this section commences an effort to find a useable definition of the concept of securitization, it tries to enhance the understanding of the securitization framework by breaking it down into the various components that constitute an act of securitization. A good understanding of these components is necessary for the subsequent discussion of definitions of securitization.

2.1.1 Components of a securitizing act

The first component that is a precondition for an act of securitization is the presence of a so- called securitizing actor. This actor is the one who securitizes and this is traditionally, in the field of securitization theory, a political or state actor that has a substantial amount of power, although critics have argued for an inclusion of more actors with so-called agency, irrespective of their official political power, who do not immediately fall into the category of actors who can be labelled as statist or institutionally powerful (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 32; McDonald, 2008, p. 564). The next two components are the referent subject and the referent object of the

9 | securitizing act. The former refers to the issue that is presented by the actor as an existential threat and, thus, a matter of high priority (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 26). The latter component of the securitizing act relates to the audience that is the target of securitization (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 32). In the case of politicians this target audience is often his or hers electorate or the citizens of a nation as a whole. With an actor, an issue and an audience present, the components of securitization are almost complete. But, it cannot be called a securitizing move without a specific aim of the securitizing act. This fourth and last component is, therefore, the desired end result of the securitizing act (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 25). For office holders this can be in form of specific policy measures or actions as a reaction to the issue presented as an existential threat. Only when all these components are present, it can be called securitizing move. Thus, a securitizing move or act means that a certain issue or object is presented by an actor through a discourse or a speech act as an existential threat in need of a policy or emergency reaction (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 24; McDonald, 2008, p. 566; Williams, 2003, p. 513). Now the four main components of a securitizing act are clear, it is time to turn to the discussion about the definition of securitization.

2.1.2 Defining the concept of securitization

As is the case with many academic concepts, there is not one, generally accepted and uncriticised concept of securitization. This section tries to find, within the conceptual discussion, a concept of securitization that can be used in this research. As securitization is the main concept of the Copenhagen School, their key proponents Buzan, Wæver and De Wilde were the first to describe the practice of securitization. They stayed relatively close to the four components which were described in the previous paragraph and this led to the formulation of a first composed definition:

“Thus, the exact definition and criteria of securitization is constituted by the intersubjective establishment of an existential threat with a saliency sufficient to have substantial political effects (…) only if and when the audience accepts it as such (…) only that the existential threat has to be argued and just gain enough resonance for a platform to be made from which it is possible to legitimize emergency measures or other steps that would not have been possible had the discourse not taken the form of existential threats, point of no return, and necessity.” (Buzan et al., 1998 p. 25) One of the main points of criticism of this tentative definition is that it understates the importance of the context of the securitizing practice. In this way, by following the directions of the Copenhagen School, the act of securitizing a certain issue begins to look like a ‘three-

10 | step program’ that in the end leads to successful securitization, whereas it is highly plausible that the role of context and the various actors that are involved, including the audience, makes the formula for success significantly more difficult (this formula for success is discussed in more detail in the next paragraph). The Copenhagen School’s definition of securitization comes across as a conventional procedure that Thierry Balzacq (2005), professor of Political Science and International Relations, compares with the formal and fixed character of an act of marital union (p. 172). Balzacq (2005) comes with a view on the securitizing practice, contrasting with the formality of the Copenhagen School’s definition:

“(…) securitization is better understood as a strategic (pragmatic) practice that occurs within, and as part of, a configuration of circumstances, including context, the psycho-cultural disposition of the audience, and the power that both speaker and listener bring to the interaction.” (p. 172) He emphasizes that securitization is more than a list of conditions that need to present for it to work. To Balzacq (2005), a securitizing act is a strategic project that is intersubjective, dynamic and its outcome and practice are heavily dependent upon the circumstances (p. 172). Both context and the audience, including their psychological and cultural character and nature, are a vital part of these circumstances. Balzacq’s view of securitization, with a prominent place for context, reflects the sociological model that emphasizes the non-discursive aspects of securitization such as audience and contextual circumstances (Balzacq, 2011a, p. 22). This model is the counterpart of the philosophical model, that is close to the conception of the Copenhagen school, which emphasizes the speech act, neglects non-discursive aspects, and leans towards the view that security is a self-referential practice (Balzacq, 2011a, p. 19). Balzacq (2005) formulates the following definition of securitization that takes into account strategic and circumstantial elements:

“(…) securitization is a sustained strategic practice aimed at convincing a target audience to accept, based on what it knows about the world, the claim that a specific development (oral threat or event) is threatening enough to deserve an immediate policy to alleviate it.” (p. 173) This definition of securitization pays attention to the context of an act, but still acknowledges the basic components that can also be found in the definition by Buzan, Wæver and De Wilde. Therefore, this definition of Balzacq will be the starting point for this research when a securitizing act is scrutinized. What, furthermore, becomes clear from this short discussion of definitions is that it is not straightforward that a securitizing act becomes a success and that there are various factors and conditions influencing the level of success. The next paragraph discusses these factors and conditions, from the more basic formula of success formulated by

11 | the Copenhagen School to the factors influencing success that were added at a later stage by critics and other scholars.

2.1.3 Basic elements for success, intersubjectivity and additional facilitating conditions

In paragraph 2.1.1 the basic components of a securitizing move or act were described. But, simply performing a securitizing move, where all components are present, does not automatically lead to a successfully securitized issue. Buzan, Wæver and De Wilde (1998) state that successful securitization consists of three elements: (1) the positioning of an issue as an existential threat, (2) which requires special or emergency actions and (3) which is accepted by the audience as such a threat (pp. 24-25). Only when all three elements are present after a securitizing move, one can speak of a securitized issue. So, the success of a securitizing move depends upon the cogency and persuasiveness of the securitizing actor to not only convince the target audience that a certain existential threat exists and is affecting them, but also to convince them that certain actions or measures are necessary in response to this threat. This emphasizes the importance of intersubjectivity in securitization. By accepting a securitizing act, the audience establishes through interaction a shared meaning of the elements of the act with the securitizing actor (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 25). A failing securitizing move means that this intersubjective establishment of a threat, in combination with necessary measures, between actor and audience, has not been successful. These three elements form the basic conception of the Copenhagen School of the formula for successful securitization. It is important to look at what conditions influence these elements of success in a positive or negative way. Therefore, this paragraph now turns to the facilitating conditions of successful securitization that are influencing the intersubjective establishment of a securitized issue. According to Buzan, Wæver and De Wilde (1998), a successful securitizing act is, in the end, the right combination of factors of language and factors of society (p. 32). They place the facilitating conditions of successful or unsuccessful securitization in an internal and an external category. The former category contains linguistic- grammatical factors (Buzan et al., 1998, pp. 32-33). The latter is made up of two factors: (1) the social capital or power of the securitizing actor and (2) specific features of the threat that hinder or facilitate securitization (Buzan et al., 1998, p. 33). The ‘quality’ of the securitizing actor or the threat issue is in their view highly important in relation to these facilitating conditions.

12 |

Thierry Balzacq, however, characterizes securitization as a strategic or pragmatic act with an important role for intersubjectivity and the circumstances surrounding the act (Balzacq, 2005, p. 172). He discusses three sets of conditions that determine to what extent securitization is effective. The first set of factors that influences the effectuation of securitization is the audience and, on the one hand, its nature, in terms of its frame of reference and its willingness to be convinced, and, on the other hand, its status, in terms of the ability to mandate the securitizing agent (Balzacq, 2005, pp. 173, 192). The second set is related to the effect of context, in form of relevant features of the spirit of the age and the situation at hand, on the response of the audience to the speech act of the securitizing actor (Balzacq, 2005, p. 192). The final set of factors concerns the power and agency of words that are used by the securitizing actor that is strongly linked with the position of the actor (Balzacq, 2005, p. 192). Another point of criticism about the Copenhagen School’s securitization framework was formulated by Matt McDonald, scholar in the field of International Security. McDonald (2008) argued that the securitization framework was too narrow in at least three ways (p. 564). First, the form of the securitizing act, that constructs security, is defined solely in terms of speech acts by dominant, political, state actors and neglects and overlooks other types of acts and actors (McDonald, 2008, p. 564). This particular shortcoming of the Copenhagen School’s securitization is shared by various other critics who also focus on improving and redefining this narrowly defined form of the securitizing act (Bigo, 2002; Hansen, 2000, 2007; Möller, 2007, Wilkinson, 2007; Williams, 2003). Second, when analysing the context of the act, the framework only looks at the intervening moment, whereas security can also be constructed incrementally over a certain amount of time (McDonald, 2008, p. 564). Finally, the securitization framework is narrow because the nature of the act is only defined in terms of threats and danger, which gives a negative and reactionary meaning to the concept of the politics of security (McDonald, 2008, p. 564). By gaining insight in this narrowness of the securitization framework, McDonald (2008) tries to improve the potential analysis of conditions that are affecting effectiveness. He emphasizes the underspecified dynamics of the framework and, more specifically, the under-theorization of the context of the act, such as the audience and other facilitating conditions, and its possible contribution or impediment to the success of the securitizing act (McDonald, 2008, p. 564). In both of these critiques and additions, the authors emphasize the Copenhagen School’s understatement of the role the context of the act as an influential set of conditions with regard to the outcome of the act. Both Balzacq and McDonald address the shortcomings of the Copenhagen School’s conception of the facilitating conditions for success in securitization and

13 | call for more attention for and better specification of the facilitating conditions in general and in specific the context of the securitizing act, that can range from the type of actor or audience to the physical circumstances or elements of the zeitgeist. This study now zooms in on the role of context in relation to the outcome of the securitizing act and, in specific, the role of the audience.

2.1.4 The role of context and audience

Léonard and Kaunert (2011) give an overview of the critique about the undertheorization of the audience as important facilitating condition. The first widely expressed critique concerns the overall uncertainty that surrounds the Copenhagen School’s conception of the role of the audience (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 58, 60). Specifically, two aspects of the role of the audience stand out that are vague and unclear. First, although the Copenhagen School mentions the importance of the audience’s acceptance, it is unclear and not well-defined what is meant by this acceptance and what it entails (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 58). The second aspect is the vagueness about how to identify the target audience of securitization (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 59). The Copenhagen School, through the words of Ole Wæver in a 2003 draft paper, have tried to bring more clarity with regard to its conception of the audience:

“Audience is those who have to be convinced in order for the securitizing move to be successful.” (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 59) Wæver’s attempt to take away some of this vagueness does not really deal with any of the abovementioned problems. Although this definition is slightly more specified, it is still not a definition that is really useful to the practice of analysing securitization and the role of the audience. In the same paper, Wæver subsequently states:

“Although one often tends to think in terms of ‘the population’ or citizenry being the audience (the ideal situation regarding ‘national security’ in a democratic society), it actually varies according to the political system and the nature of the issue.” (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 59) Here, Wæver acknowledges that audience can differ per situation and is often a more specified community of people than just the population as a whole, but he gives no real direction about how the audience could be operationalised in empirical research. The second point of critique to the concept of audience as it is conceived by the Copenhagen School is that there is a paradox between the portraying of securitization as a intersubjective practice and as a self-referential practice (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 60). On the one hand, the Copenhagen School emphasizes audience acceptance and the construction of

14 | shared understandings between actor and audience, but, on the other hand, they place great emphasis on the speech act and the securitizing actor and leave the audience rather unspecified and undertheorized (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 60). Finally, scholars have been critical about the oversimplification of the audience (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 60). Audiences do vary, there is a wide array of possible, differing characteristics, and there can be more than one audience involved in a securitizing act (Léonard & Kaunert, 2011, p. 60). As has already been stated in the previous paragraph, Balzacq addresses this same point and is critical about the formality of the Copenhagen School and their neglect of the possible impact of different contexts and audiences. Mark B. Salter (2008), scholar in the field of Political Studies, came up with a reconceptualization of the audience by introducing different types of audience settings, like elite or popular, which are different audience communities (p. 322). He argues that:

“In each of these different settings, the core rules for authority/knowledge (who can speak), the social context (what can be spoken), and the degree of success (what is heard) vary.” (Salter, 2008, p. 322) With this reconceptualization of the audience, Salter addresses the fact that the audience can be different in each setting and, furthermore, emphasizes the importance of social context. Focusing specifically on context and audience, the core of the debate about the facilitating conditions of successful securitization comes down to, as Balzacq formulates it (2005),

“the practically important question of what the proportionate causal weight of audience and context are in securitization theory.” (p. 178) Although, this research is not aimed at drawing any conclusions with regard to the relative causal weight of context and audience, this study tries to make a contribution to the understanding of the role of context and audience in the securitization framework on a practical and theoretical level. It approaches this debate about facilitating conditions from a new perspective that takes as a starting point that there is some weight in the role of the audience and the context of the act with regard to the success and outcome of securitization and that has been touched upon lightly by Balzacq (2005):

“To persuade the audience (e.g. the public), that is, to achieve a perlocutionary effect, the speaker has to tune his/her language to the audience’s experience.” (p. 184) As Balzacq emphasizes, it is the aim of the securitizing actor to make an appeal to the experience of the audience and communicate, in this respect, at this same level with the audience. The experience that needs to be understood by the securitizing actor has a strong

15 | connection with the psychological and cultural character of the context and audience. It is the aim of this research to better understand the factors influencing the outcome of the act and, thus, the psychological and cultural character of both audience and context. A better understanding of this character might be reached by adding insights from collective memory studies. The collective memory of people has a clear link with audience experience and the context. This specific memory is a defining trait of the context in relation to the spirit of the time when the act takes place and the people that are being addressed. Elements of a collective memory, as a part of the referent object, i.e. audience, and something more abstract that can be called the zeitgeist or spirit of the time, could well influence or affect the outcome and effectiveness of a securitizing act. It is quite conceivable that when the same speech act is being addressed to two different audiences, with each a very different social, ethnic or national background, it leads to a very different outcome. Let alone that the moment in time of the speech act would also have been different, for instance decades apart. Although many factors can create these difference between audience, time and place, the collective memory is one of these factors. It is both dependent on the audience and the time and is, therefore, a crucial element of the context. The next paragraph will elaborate further upon the concept of collective memory and insights from this particular field.

2.2 Collective memory

One of the main critiques to the field of collective memory studies is that it has failed to come to a conceptual understanding of collective memory that is different from the individual concept of memory (Kansteiner, 2002, p. 180). Both the difference and the relationship between the collective and individual memory has not been clarified and conceptualized. Some even argue that an individual memory does not exist, because it cannot be studied, let alone conceptualized, without referring to the social context (Kansteiner, 2002, p. 185). Nonetheless, the individual memory is studied a lot in terms of emotional and psychological dynamics, but this leads to methodological mistakes when a collective memory is treated as an individual one (Kansteiner, 2002, p. 185). In this manner a collective memory is seen from an individualistic approach as an aggregation of multiple individual memories, a so-called collected memory, instead of a collective memory which has dynamics of its own and cannot be reduced to individual memory processes (Olick, 1999b, pp. 338, 341). So, the focus will now be on the concept of collective memory instead of the conceptually unsettled individual memory.

16 |

2.2.1 Presentism vs. path dependency

Any discussion about the field of collective memory studies starts with the works of French philosopher and sociologist Maurice Halbwachs, who was the founder of the concept of collective memory. Halbwachs was the first to write about the existence of a collective memory, that serves as a social framework for memory and contains shared representations of the past (Halbwachs, 1992, p. 38). These representations in collective memory are the product of an ongoing, ever-changing process, fuelled by social change and changes in the collective (Schwartz, 1982, p. 375). The abovementioned idea that the individual memory cannot be seen separate from the collective memory, and therefore the social context of the time, originates from Halbwachs. He argued that the individual memory interacts with the social framework of memory and takes part in it in order to exist and function (Halbwachs, 1992, p. 38). The presentist stance of Halbwachs, meaning that our commemorative understanding of the past is entirely dictated by current, social context and is, therefore, always relative and never objective and constant, has received critique by scholars who are leaning more towards path dependency (Olick, 1999a, p. 383; Saito, 2006, pp. 354-355; Schwartz, 1982, pp. 376-377). These scholars argue that present collective memory is limited, but not determined, by the original construct and later commemorations of the object of memory (Olick, 1999a, p. 383; Saito, 2006, p. 355). It can be reshaped, but within the limits of the past (Saito, 2006, p. 355). Jeffrey K. Olick, contemporary scholar in Cultural Sociology and Sociological Theory and expert in the field of memory studies, addresses this critique on Halbwachs’ presentism in his model of collective memory. Olick (1999a) states that collective memory and commemoration do not solely represent an objective point of reference or lesson of the past or the social context of the present, but it rather expresses the altering interactions between the two (p. 381). His model consists of three factors that make up a collective memory: (1) the politics of memory, that represents the dependency on contemporary context and circumstances, (2) the history of memory, that is the development over the long term of memory and forms of commemoration, and (3) the memory of memory, that is the path dependency and periodicity that relates to past and present (Olick, 1999b, pp. 381, 383). This discussion represents a key debate in memory studies that is about whether a collective memory is mainly dependent upon the past, the context and construction in the presence or a combination together with the path that the memory and commemorative practices have travelled since the beginning.

17 |

2.2.2 Cultural memory and other terminology

The field of collective memory studies have accumulated a lot of new terms over the years. New terms, words and phrases have been introduced by various scholars in memory studies and the size of the collection of terminology has grown significantly. From social memory and national memory to public memory and counter memory, they all make an addition to the field of collective memory studies and try to distinguish themselves from their predecessors (Kansteiner, 2002, p. 182). One particular approach, that distinguished itself from Halbwachs’ reliance on social context and change in his discussion of the collective memory, was developed by German Egyptologist Jan Assmann. Assmann (1995) introduced the term ‘cultural memory’ as the complete opposite of the idea of a memory, that he calls a ‘communicative memory’, that is under the influence of the contemporary context of everyday (pp. 128-129). Cultural memory is distanced from the contemporary context and has various fixed points of past events that are kept in memory because of the cultural formation in, for example, monuments and texts or through institutional communication, like practice and recitation (Assmann, 1995, p. 129). Assmann tries to overcome the discussion between the role of past and present in a collective memory by making a distinction by separating these two in different types of memory.

2.2.3 Collective memory, social context and the audience

The collective memory is thus a kind of social framework for the memory and consists of shared representations of the past. Regardless of whether you take the stance of presentists or path dependents, the place in time is of the essence. Both approaches leave to a greater or lesser extent room for the social context of the present time to shape a collective memory, so the status of this collective memory at a given moment is unique and incomparable with this same collective memory from another place in in time (Saito, 2006, p. 355; Schwartz, 1982, p. 375). It is an ongoing and ever-changing memory that cannot be seen separately from the social context, either because it is solely dictated by the current context or because it is reshaped by this context within the limits of history and the path towards the now (Saito, 2006, p. 355; Schwartz, 1982, p. 375). Furthermore, the community that makes up this collective group of people and share a collective memory is essential and makes a certain collective memory unique. All moments and experiences that have formed this community are collected in its collective memory.

18 |

As the previous section indicated, the audience and context are affecting the outcome of a securitizing move and this section shows that the collective memory is an important part of this same audience and context. Therefore, the collective memory should be taken into account when scrutinizing these two facilitating conditions of securitization. Each securitizing act can be viewed as an opportunity of reshaping the collective memory in light of the present social context. In this way, Balzacq’s statement that the securitizing actor needs to tune his or her language to the experience of the audience sounds like a direct reference to the need for awareness of the audience’s collective memory (Balzacq, 2005, p. 184). Moments and experiences within the collective memory of an audience may also include collective traumatic events. These tragic and dramatic events are often key defining moments in the history of a community and have a great potential for reshaping the collective memory. Therefore, these traumas are very likely to become part of the collective memory. The next paragraph discusses insights from trauma theory, specifically focused on collective forms of trauma, and explores the concept of collective trauma as a part of the collective memory and as an interesting perspective on the elements of context and audience in the securitization framework.

2.3 Trauma

Just as the concept of collective memory was distinguished in the previous section from the individual memory, the conceptual difference between individual trauma and collective forms of trauma should be made clear. Therefore, this section explores the historical origins of the concept of trauma in an individual sense before proceeding to a discussion about collective trauma.

2.3.1 Historical origins of trauma

The field of psychoanalysis, headed by Sigmund Freud, started as a theory of trauma (Bohleber, 2007, p. 329). This means that since psychoanalysis gained prominence in the late 19th century, trauma has been a concept of study and the subject of numerous academic debates. Trauma theory has developed in psychoanalytic theory by means of two key models: the psycho- economic model and a model based on object-relations theory. The psycho-economic model describes a situation of trauma as an isolated case of excessive excitation leading to anxiety that cannot be controlled by the psyche, overpowers the ego and creates a situation of total

19 | helplessness (Bohleber, 2007, pp. 338-339). In contrast, object-relations theory puts the relationship with the object at the centre of the trauma, meaning a more intense object relationship can lead to a trauma of greater quality (Bohleber, 2007, p. 339). Consequently, a greater trauma represents a greater damage to the object relationship and an internal communications breakdown between the representation of the object and the self, that causes the emergence of secluded fragments of the traumatic experience (Bohleber, 2007, p. 339). These models laid the foundation for the concept of trauma in contemporary trauma literature. A dominant, modern-day conception of trauma is relatively close to what is known as ‘physical trauma’ and sees it as an experience that threatens the individual’s well-being or health (Brewin, Dalgleish & Joseph, 1996, p. 675). In congruence with the physical variant, these authors conceive a traumatic experience as not necessarily outside the ordinary, because many phenomena with trauma potential take place each year and affect many people and because, moreover, a minor incident can have major consequences (Brewin et al., 1996, p. 675; Suedfeld, 1997, p. 850). Others have portrayed traumatic experiences closer to extraordinary events as radical changes with explosive quality and an important element of shock (Neal, 2005, p. 3). Apart from the discussion if trauma constitutes an ordinary or an extraordinary event, an important element of a traumatic experience is the disintegration of a person’s assumptions by the trauma about him- or herself and the world together with the feeling of vulnerability it creates (Janoff-Bulman & Sheikh, 2006, p. 325).

2.3.2 Collective forms of trauma

A trauma can affect the mind of one individual, but it can affect a larger group of people too. These forms of macro-level trauma represent something more than simply adding up individual traumas (Suedfeld, 1997, p. 849). Although the similarities are that the trauma can have long- lasting effects in the memory and it permanently changes the subject (group), the difference is that the macro-level trauma is shared and can create a cohesive effect (Neal, 2005, p. 4). When a breakdown of assumptions, like security or invulnerability, is experienced at the broader level of society, that transcends all the paralleling individual traumas, a whole country can be thrown into a state of national trauma (Janoff-Bulman & Sheikh, 2006, pp. 325-326). The concept of national trauma has generated a specific branch of literature within trauma theory that specifically looks at the psychological reactions of a whole nation to traumatic events. National trauma has been defined by Witztum and Malkinson (1998) as:

“(…) a singular catastrophic event that has a pervasive effect on the whole nation.” (p. 119)

20 |

This concept has been used in academic literature in mainly two contexts: (1) in a cultural context to discuss collective experiences of traumatic events that change society and (2) in a mental health context as a professional category (Plotkin-Amrani & Brunner, 2015, p. 526). A national trauma is just one form of macro-level, collective trauma, but it is a form where the population or community that is affected is very clearly defined. This has the advantage that it entails a specified population that can be used in practice or research, but the downside is that it generalizes, treats a national population as one and makes no acknowledgement of diversity within this population (Janoff-Bulman & Sheikh, 2006, p. 328; Neal, 2005, pp. 5-6). Other terms of collective trauma in the cultural sense are more specific in terms of the community that is affected or the type of event. One of these more specific forms of collective trauma is the trauma that is caused by dramatic and stressful events in the political sphere. This form of trauma, that is the result of traumatic political events, is a relatively new field of study (Raviv, Sadeh, Raviv, Silbertstein & Diver, 2000, pp. 299-300). This so-called collective political trauma is defined by Yaacov Vertzberger (1997), expert in the field of International Relations and Political Psychology, as:

“(…) a shattering, often violent event that affects a community of people and that results from human behaviour that is politically motivated and has political consequences.” (p. 864) Collective political trauma can not only affect an already existing community, but it could also create communities by connecting people that now have a common tie of a shared, traumatic experience (Vertzberger, 1997, p. 864). Of course, this is also applicable to other collective forms of trauma. Another form of collective trauma is cultural trauma. Cultural trauma was coined by Jeffrey C. Alexander (2004), key figure in contemporary Cultural Sociology, and describes the situation when a collective group of people is subject to a tragic or dramatic event which scars their collective memory and consciousness and alters their identity in a definite and significant way (p. 1). Events in form of social crises happen regularly, but before they become a collective trauma, they have to transform into a cultural crisis through a process of socially constructing a traumatic event (Alexander, 2004, p. 10). As Alexander (2004) puts it:

“For traumas to emerge at the level of the collectivity, social crisis must become cultural crisis. Events are one thing, representations of these events quite another. Trauma is not the result of a group experiencing pain. It is the result of this acute discomfort entering into the core of the collectivity’s sense of its own identity. Collective actors “decide” to represent social pain as a fundamental threat to their sense of who they are, where they came from, and where they go to.” (p. 10)

21 |

The point made by Alexander, that cultural trauma is socially constructed, has received some critique. Although, the value of his constructivist approach to trauma is acknowledged, critics point at the tendency to overlook the psychological and emotional dimension of the cultural trauma that cannot be simplified into a purely, discursive construction (Saito, 2006, p. 358). Where national trauma and collective political trauma were more event-centred, cultural trauma focuses more on the social process and the question of why some events become a cultural trauma and others do not. This discussion of the various forms of collective trauma, cultural or psychological, constructed or not constructed, shows that they all recognize, to a certain extent, that certain events, that are sufficiently devastating and traumatizing, have an ability to affect whole nations or groups of people. From the perspective of all these aforementioned varieties, a collective trauma of the size of a national trauma is possible and not ruled out in advance. A contrasting viewpoint that completely denies the ability of these events to affect a nation is expressed by Ido de Haan (1998), scholar in the field of Political History, who states that no such thing as a national trauma can exist (p. 198). He argues that the existence of national traumas would suggest that a nation is a unified body that acts collectively, whereas this would strongly overlook the social divisions and political tensions in a society (De Haan, 1998, p. 198). Therefore, arguing or declaring that something is a national trauma is in his view hypocrite, politically naïve and nothing more than a metaphorical construction and, moreover, has no additional value in explaining the event (De Haan, 1998, pp. 197-198). Although this plea for the acknowledgement of diversity within a nation is a valuable contribution to the conceptual discussion of national trauma, De Haan does not deny the occurrence of this discursive construction of national or collective traumas in practice by politicians. The use and function of national trauma and other forms of collective trauma is, therefore, still an interesting phenomena to study in the securitizing discourse of politicians.

2.3.3 Collective trauma and securitization

The combination of securitization and trauma has been touched upon in previous research. Jenny Edkins (2002), professor of International Politics, has focused in her research on the link between traumatic events and securitization. She scrutinized securitization, next to criminalization, aestheticization and politicization, as one of the possible reactions to large, traumatic events (Edkins, 2002, p. 243). Other studies, not related to securitization, have also focused on reactions after trauma and the great potential for change. What is crucial about

22 | collective traumas is that it has pervasive effects and consequences for the future of a country and can lead to significant changes. Many of these possible effects and responses within a nation, such as patriotism, increased moralizing, policy change and infringements on civil liberties, have been the topic of academic research (Janoff-Bulman & Sheikh, 2006, p. 326). Collective trauma and its potential for change is also relevant to the field of securitization. The aim of securitizing acts is to achieve some kind of (policy) action or change and this is the point where collective traumas can be of help. The right timing, in the wake of a collective trauma event, or the right use of collective traumas in the speech acts, tuned to the audience’s experience, can help a securitizing actor to successfully securitize a certain issue. At the same time, a securitizing act reshapes the traumatic event. Collective traumas, as an undeniable part of the collective memory, are just as the whole collective memory shaped by modern-day politics of the memory, like the current social context and in this case a securitizing act. It is the role of collective traumas, that have settled in the collective memory of a community, in securitizing acts that is the central focus of this study. Are collective traumas used in securitizing speech acts, how are they used and what function do they have in the discourse? These questions are of importance when securitizing moves are analysed from a perspective of the field of trauma studies. The definition of collective trauma which is used in this research is a combination of the abovementioned definitions of national trauma and collective political trauma. In addition to the characteristics of the nature of the trauma that both of these definitions contain, it combines the unspecified type of events of national trauma and the undefined population of collective political trauma. The definition of collective trauma, thus, becomes: ‘a shattering, catastrophic, often violent event that has a pervasive effect on a community of people or nation as a whole’. The undefined aspects of population and event in this definition gives some freedom with regard to the traumas that are distilled from the analysis. The design of this analysis in relation to operationalization, methodology, and case is discussed in the next chapter. The final section of this chapter focuses on the American gun debate and serves as the background for the case design that is used in this study.

2.4 United States gun politics

The American gun debate is arguably one of the most heated topics in recent political and societal discussions in the United States and has been an area of controversy in the political arena for many decades. As the historical overview in this paragraph will show, the 23 | development of the American gun debate and gun policy has been influenced on various occasions by collective trauma events due to the involvement of guns. This direct link of the gun debate with collective trauma is an important reason why this debate serves as a case in this research, because there is a relatively better chance that there is at least some collective trauma usage in the texts that can be analysed. This is important because collective trauma needs to be used in order to analyse its function in the discourse. Furthermore, an analysis of both use and function allows for a better discussion of possible theoretical implications. Additionally, other important reasons to use this American debate as a case are the presence of two clear political camps in the debate and the excellent media coverage and registration of various securitizing acts. The first paragraph gives an overview of the historical development of policy and legislation in the area of gun control and gun rights by discussing the key moments until the Assault Weapons Ban of January 24, 2013. The second and final paragraph deals with the question of who are on both sides of the debate and what they stand for. Furthermore, this paragraph discusses some key debates in academic literature that try to answer questions like what is the gun debate really about, how can it move forward, and what explains the deep division between the two sides.

2.4.1 Policy development and legislation

Up to the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of January 24, 2013, and the Manchin- Toomey Amendment of April 11, 2013, the history of gun politics in the United States has been a long one with many introduced bills, lawsuits and alterations in legislation. Some of these were key defining moments that changed the debate significantly and had a defining and lasting effect on gun control or gun rights up to the present day. These key moments are the ones being discussed in this paragraph. Three key legislative acts in the area of gun control are discussed here. The first act is the Gun Control Act of 1968 that was adopted after a period of several assassinations and whose content was influenced by these assassinations of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King, Jr. (Hogan & Rood, 2015, p. 365). The Gun Control Act, which replaced the less comprehensive Federal Firearms Act of 1938, aimed at prohibiting unlicensed interstate transport of weapons and ammunition, prohibiting sales to minors and people who were from another state and introducing some form of registration (Cooper, 2015, pp. 357-358). In addition, a list was created in the Gun Control Act of groups of persons, like minors,

24 | fugitives, people who were convicted, people who are mentally ill and addicts, who were prohibited from gun ownership or gun trade (Cooper, 2015, p. 358). But, these measures did not stop the availability of guns to these pre-defined groups, who could still buy their guns from non-dealers, and the legislation was, consequentially, not that effective (Cooper, 2015, p. 358). The second legislative act was introduced in the wake of the assassination of John Lennon and the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan (Hogan & Rood, 2015, p. 365). This Brady Act of 1993 introduced a system of background checks and stated that a handgun cannot be sold to an unlicensed individual unless he or she would cooperate in a procedure of identification and registration (Cooper, 2015, p. 360). Again, if this person is part of one of the earlier mentioned pre-defined groups, he or she is not allowed to buy the handgun (Cooper, 2015, p. 360). The third and final piece of gun control legislation is the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 that was inspired by a school shooting in California in 1989 (Cowan, 2012, December 16). This ban forbade, for a ten-year period, to manufacture, sell or possess several types of firearms that were defined as assault weapons together with some large capacity magazines (Cooper, 2015, p. 161). After the expiration of the Ban in 2004 a handful of states maintained the ban on the specific magazines (Cooper, 2015, pp. 161-162). Overall, the effects of these legislative acts were mixed. In the political and legislative process, efforts of gun control legislation were, throughout history, always confronted with the long-established precedent of gun ownership and use and appeals to Second Amendment rights (Cooper, 2015, p. 374). This Second Amendment rights involve the fundamental right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defence (Cooper, 2015, p. 354). This rights has always clashed with gun control efforts in the American gun debate. One general discussion that fuelled debates surrounding this Second Amendment right is whether the original Second Amendment text in the Constitution should be interpreted in an ‘originalist’ fashion, meaning how the founders originally understood it (Cornell & DeDino, 2004, p. 488). This originalist rhetoric is still often heard in the gun debate. Throughout the years, the Second Amendment rights in relation to gun control have evolved and have been redefined in several US Supreme Court decisions. Two recent landmark cases are of key importance. First, in District of Columbia v. Heller the Supreme Court concluded that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is not dependent upon service in a militia (Cooper, 2015, pp. 344, 364). Second, in McDonald v. Chicago the Supreme Court opined that the Second Amendment right to keep and bear guns is not only applicable to the federal government, but also to state and local governments (Cooper, 2015, pp. 345, 365-366). Although the Supreme court stated in District

25 | of Columbia v. Heller that this Second Amendment right is not an unlimited right, the effect of both decisions is that there is little room to manoeuvre for federal and state governments and it is much more difficult for them to regulate the usage and possession of guns by individuals (Cooper, 2015, pp. 344, 364). The Supreme Court has not given any guidance on how the various governments can regulate guns and at the same time uphold the individual’s right to keep and bear guns and how this not unlimited right can be limited in practice (Cooper, 2015, pp. 366-367). Gun politics in the United States remains a controversial and complex policy area and a struggle between gun control and the rights of law-abiding citizens.

2.4.2 The two sides of the debate and the cultural groundings of their attitudes

The American gun debate is predominantly fought by two opposing camps in American politics and society: the gun control advocates, who are pursuing stricter gun regulation, and the gun rights advocates, who are emphasizing the Second Amendment and its right to keep and bear arms. Although the majority of the Americans are relatively moderate in their opinion about guns, the debate is lacking rhetorical leadership because it is hijacked on both sides by radical advocates and heavily influenced by gun manufacturers and special interest groups with abundant funds (Hogan & Rood, 2015, pp. 359-360). The special interest groups are influential non-profit organizations that are actively recruiting politicians in the Senate and the House of Representatives and are funding campaigns (both political and advertisement) that support their cause. The Brady Campaign and the Americans for Gun Safety Foundation are important examples of non-profit organizations that aim for more gun control and the main non-profit organization that defends the right to bear arms is the National Rifle Association (NRA). These influences create a debate that is filled with emotions, misconceptions, political games, and struggles for power, influence, and money. But when this debate is cleared from all rhetoric and framing, it boils down to the rather simple and straightforward question of whether the availability of guns makes American society more safe or less (Braman & Kahan, 2006, p. 570). Although the question of whether guns make society safer or not seems a simple one, in practice the debate is often not constructive and finds itself in a situation that can be best characterized as a deadlock. Practice shows that the answer is often sought by employing all kinds of empirical methods, which leads to great arsenals of statistics on both sides that can be fired at each other in speeches, debates, and interviews, without getting anywhere (Braman & Kahan, 2006, p. 570).

26 |

The history of gun control proponents has been one with mixed success, but all pro-gun control parties and organizations involved always opted for a centralized strategy (Goss, 2004, pp. 696-697, 703). This stemmed from the logic that guns can be transported and people who want guns can move around (Goss, 2004, p. 696). Therefore, only a nationwide policy would have effect and local or state regulations are useless (Goss, 2004, p. 696). Furthermore, a political discourse that is frequently used by gun control advocates, often in context of shootings, is that an unlimited access to guns must, at a certain point, lead to terrible consequences and, undeniably, creates human tragedies (Collier, 2014, p. 103). Two political discourses that are often used by the gun rights proponents to justify and rationalize their standpoints can be divided in a neo-liberal line of reasoning and a more radical line of reasoning. The neo-liberal discourse emphasizes high crime levels and the failure of the state and the police to ensure protection and security as a justification for the individualistic, private solution of wearing a gun (Carlson, 2012, p. 1114). The radical discourse is about justifying gun ownership by emphasizing misconduct, violation and abuse by the police on top of their shortcomings in crime prevention (Carlson, 2012, p. 1114). Gary Kleck (1996), criminologist and well-known for his works on guns and violence, studied national survey data to determine whether the fear of crime, prior victimization, and high crime rates influence the support for gun control (p. 387). He found no support for a causal relationship between increased gun control support and non-political criminal violence and states that the historical record shows that the passing of past gun control legislation can be mainly attributed to political threats or violence, like riots and assassinations (Kleck, 1996, pp. 400-401). This was also visible in the first paragraph that discussed the historical development of gun control. Kleck (1996) gives another explanation for a higher support of gun control and argues that:

“Instead of gun control support being seen as a response to crime, it would seem more useful to see it as the product of membership in culturally conflicting social groupings.” (Kleck, 1996, p. 401) The influence of the factor of cultural context or background as an explanation for the divides in the gun control debate is shared by many authors in gun debate literature. Donald Braman and Dan M. Kahan (2006), both specialists in the fields of Cultural Cognition, Criminal Law, and Evidence, acknowledge the inability of statistics to help the debate to move forward because this does not address the fundamental differences in the cultural worldview of the opposing groups, that includes different conceptions of the social meaning of guns and conflicting visions of what constitutes a good American society (Braman

27 |

& Kahan, 2006, pp. 570, 606). The cultural worldview of most gun control advocates can be described as egalitarian and communal and to them guns represent the continuation of undesirable hierarchies in society, the prevalence of force and not caring about the welfare of other people (Braman & Kahan, 2006, pp. 570, 606; Chemerinsky, 2004, pp. 481-483). The worldview of the gun rights advocates has a more hierarchic and individualistic focus and see guns as symbols of individual independence, man’s control over nature and honour (Braman & Kahan, 2006, pp. 570, 606; Chemerinsky, 2004, pp. 481-483). In an earlier work, Kahan (1999) described the origins of these competing cultural styles and the meanings that motivate and fuel these sides. The positive meanings about guns by anti- gun control proponents originate from two historical sources: the militia heritage and the frontier heritage in America (Kahan, 1999, p. 454). The opposition to gun control highly valuates these meanings and sees guns as symbols of individual self-reliance, civic virtue, self- defence (Kahan, 1999, pp. 454, 457). The gun control advocates share these meanings with their opponents, but have a totally different, negative valuation of them, mainly due to an aversion to gun use and violence (Kahan, 1999, p. 456). In addition to this aversion, they see guns as denying civic solidarity and this negative, social meaning about guns has two other origins (Kahan, 1999, p. 457). First, the refusal to accept and comply with gender hierarchy and the corresponding image of a gun as a symbol for the status of men (Kahan, 1999, p. 456). Second, anti-racism sentiments play an important role, because, in addition to the image of a gun as a symbol of male dominance, the gun is also a symbol of white male domination (Kahan, 1999, p. 457). Erwin Chemerinsky (2004), prominent scholar in US Constitutional Law and pro-gun control advocate, acknowledges the deep division in the gun debate between the conservatives, that emphasize individual rights, and liberal progressives, that stress the importance of collective rights, but is not satisfied with the cultural explanations for this divide (pp. 481-483). He discusses three possible cultural explanations for the differing visions and attitudes that, in his view, fall short. The first explanation, which entails that the divide is created by differing personal experiences, might explain to some extent different personal views about weapons, but it does not account for the consistent choice of conservatives for individual rights or the choice for collective rights on the other side (Chemerinsky, 2004, pp. 481-482). The second cultural explanation states that this division in attitudes exist because it is grounded in the perceived need to secure oneself from an oppressive government (Chemerinsky, 2004, p. 482). Although this argument is often heard in anti-gun control discourse, this explanation is completely out-of-date and out of place in a society where citizens, in more than two centuries,

28 | have never used their guns against their government on these ground (possible exception: the American Civil War) (Chemerinsky, 2004, p. 482). The last explanation would be the perceived distrust in the government, whose attempt to introduce background checks is, in view of anti- gun control proponents, just the first step towards the confiscation of all firearms (Chemerinsky, 2004, p. 483). Apart from the fact that this latter argument lacks logic, liberal progressive are often equally distrustful of the government and are generally not supportive of tighter government regulation (Chemerinsky, 2004, p. 483). So, despite some diverging positions with regard to the cultural explanations about the deep divide, a shared understanding in academic literature is that the gun debate has a very strong action-reaction dynamic and is not likely to build a bridge over the social-cultural gap between the two sides (Chemerinsky, 2004, p. 481; Kahan, 1999, p. 462). The cultural worldviews or styles are diametrically opposed to each other, incompatible, and stand in the way of a sustainable compromise or solution. This thesis makes an effort to approach the gun debate from a perspective of collective trauma and analyse, within the chosen case design, the relationship between collective trauma and the two cultural worldviews. This study specifically focuses on the use and function of collective trauma in securitizing acts from both sides and whether this matches with the cultural styles of their supporters and whether these roles of collective trauma on both sides are also diametrically opposed. Furthermore, the history of gun control and the academic debate acknowledges the importance of events that classify as collective trauma in the development of gun control policy. This shows importance of good timing in relation to traumatic experiences in the collective memory and using these traumas for ‘the better’, meaning pushing for some legislation when the time is right and arguments are up for grabs. This makes the combination collective trauma and the gun debate an interesting case to study. Therefore, an additional aspect to look at in this case is whether momentum can be generated by using collective trauma to move forward in the debate or legislative development of gun control or that this also ends in a deadlock.

29 |

RESEARCH DESIGN

In this chapter, the research design that serves to answer the central research question is explained. The first section discusses the operationalisation of the research and entails the development of the relevant concepts into indicators, an explanation of the type of research and the research methodology. The second section elaborates on the case study design and discusses in detail the type of design, the sampling and the methods of data collection.

3.1 Operationalisation

This section starts by pointing out the concepts mentioned in the research question that need to be operationalized. The definitions of the concepts, that are needed to be able to turn the concepts into indicators, are distilled from the body of knowledge in the previous chapter. Subsequently, the concept of securitization and the concept of collective trauma are developed into indicators. The last paragraph of this section discusses the type of research and the methodology that is applied in this study.

3.1.1 Concepts and definitions

Two concepts are relevant and need to be defined and put into indicators in order to answer the research question. The first is securitization. This concept is not intended to capture securitization in the sense of the whole securitization theory, but aims at the action that can also be called a securitizing act or securitizing move. The definition of securitization that is used in this study is:

30 |

“a shattering, catastrophic, often violent event that has a pervasive effect on a community of people or nation as a whole.”

3.1.2 Indicators for the concept of securitization

The indicators related to the concept of securitization can be divided in three sets. The first set of indicators is used during the collection of data in the case study, rather than in the analysis itself, because before the collected data can be analysed, an act of securitization should be established. This set of indicators, thus, serves as a suitability check to indicate whether this piece of data is a securitizing act or not. The indicators are the components of securitization, as explained in the body of knowledge, which are described by Buzan, Wæver and De Wilde (1998):  A securitizing actor, i.e. the one who securitizes;  An existential threat, i.e. the referent subject of the securitizing act;  An audience, i.e. the referent object of the securitizing act;  A motivation and aim, i.e. why and with what end result (policy, actions, etc.) (p. 32). Al four indicators need to be clearly present in order to constitute an act of securitization. The second set of indicators regarding securitization analyses the securitizing practice within the texts and discourses of the acts. These indicators try to capture the discursive practice that is used in the securitizing acts by the securitizing actor to persuade the target audience and establish the successful securitization of a certain issue. First, there is a more general, intratextual indicator of what action a text tries to achieve, that has been included in a methodology developed by Thierry Balzacq (2011b), but was originally formulated and explained by John R. Searle (1976), a well-respected philosopher and known for his work on speech acts. So, is the speech act or text:  Assertive/representative, i.e. an act where the actor expresses a belief, that can be either true or false, that something is being the case (Searle, 1976, p. 10);  Commissive, i.e. an act to commit the actor to some future course of action (Searle, 1976, p. 11);  Expressive, i.e. an act to express the psychological state about a state of affairs (Searle, 1976, p. 12);  Directive, i.e. an act, modest (inviting or suggesting) or fierce (insisting), by the actor to get the referent object to do something (Searle, 1976, p. 11);  Declarative, i.e. an act that bring about some alternation in the status or condition of the referent object, solely in virtue of the fact that the declaration has been successfully performed (Searle, 1976, p. 14).

31 |

Second, more specific, intratextual indicators that involve a direct mentioning, heuristic artefact or interaction that were formulated by Balzacq (2011b):  Direct mentioning or direct wordings;  Metaphors;  Analogies;  Emotions;  Stereotypes;  Identifying with audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests;  Interactions (p. 43). These intratextual indicators are contributing to the unravelling of how securitization is discursively constructed in speech texts. Because this study is not aimed at analysing an act of securitization itself, but comprises the use of collective trauma within these discursive constructs in securitizing speech texts, this second set of indicators will lead to combined indicators with the concept of collective trauma. This will be further discussed in the next paragraph. Finally, the third set of indicators analyses the securitizing practice between the texts and discourses and are called the intertextual indicators. These indicators look at the discursive construction resulting from the interplay between texts and discourses, because no securitizing discourse is on its own and it always arises from interrelations with previous texts and discourses (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). These intertextual indicators are:  Chronological order of texts; to determine which texts were already existent;  Reactions or references to texts of other actors;  References to own texts (Buzan, 2011b, p. 43). These are the indicators for the concept of securitization, the next paragraph defines the indicators for the concept of collective trauma.

3.1.3 Indicators for the concept of collective trauma

There are three sets of indicators that flow from the operationalization of collective trauma. The first set of indicators is used both in the sampling process in relation to the case and in the analysis. These indicators are derived from the definition that is used for collective trauma and help to check whether the unit of analysis or the discursive construct is in fact a collective trauma or refers to a collective trauma:  A shattering, catastrophic, often violent event;  A pervasive effect;  Affecting a community of people or nation as a whole.

32 |

A positive identification of a collective trauma in a securitizing text is one thing, but the analysis of its role within a securitization discourse is the aim of the next two sets of indicators. Therefore, the second set of indicators related to the concept of collective trauma focuses on the use of this trauma within the securitizing act. As stated in the previous paragraph, this set of indicators is operationalized in combination with the intratextual indicators that involve a direct mentioning, heuristic artefact or interaction. So, to analyse the use of collective trauma in the discourse of a securitizing act, this study look at the use of collective trauma as intratextual indicators of securitization. Each of these securitization indicators, like direct mentioning, various heuristic artefacts and interaction, is transformed into a collective trauma- specific indicator:  Direct mentioning or direct wordings; i.c. a factual mentioning of a collective trauma event or related facts;  Metaphors; i.c. figures of speech, meaning non-literal, descriptive wordings, referring to collective trauma event(s);  Analogies; i.c. using a comparison, typically on the basis of their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification, to describe or use the collective trauma(s);  Emotions; i.c. using words that reflect or describe a state of mind or mood in relation to the collective trauma(s);  Stereotypes; i.c. portraying persons or things related to the collective trauma(s) in accordance with fixed and oversimplified images;  Identifying with audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests; i.c. associating closely with the audience by referring to their feelings, needs and/or interests in relation to the collective trauma(s);  Interactions; i.c. reacting to the audience in relation to the collective trauma(s) or responding to victims of the collective trauma(s). The usage of collective trauma is just the first part of the potential role in a securitizing text. By solely analysing the use, the only thing that can be determined is whether collective trauma is present and in what type of wordings or heuristic artefact it is used. To get a more complete analysis of the role of collective trauma, it is necessary to analyse the specific function of a particular usage of collective trauma in the securitizing discourse, meaning the message it wants to transmit to the audience or the potential effect on the audience through the use of collective trauma. Therefore, the last set of indicators encompasses the function or functions of a particular usage of collective trauma in a securitizing act:  appealing to existent community; i.c. a more general mentioning of an existing group that went through the traumatic event(s);  uniting/creating a community; i.c. expressing the need to stand together, united, and/or emphasizing the collective experience of a group that went through the traumatic event(s);

33 |

 demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup; i.c. portray offender(s) of collective trauma as wicked and/or singling out a (sub)group in society that poses a risk and danger and is responsible for the collective trauma(s);  remembrance and sympathizing with victims; i.c. naming victims of the collective trauma(s), personal or in general, expressing sympathy;  evoke emotional reaction; i.c. expressing sadness, pain, grief, tearing up or the use of other emotional wordings in relation to collective trauma(s);  scare the audience; i.c. emphasizing dangers and devastating effects of the collective trauma(s) or in relation to collective trauma(s);  evoke anger/revenge feelings; i.c. expressing angriness about a certain situation in relation to the collective trauma(s) or arguing for counteraction in the name of vengeance;  emphasizing frustration; i.c. expressing frustrated feelings about certain issues, persons, developments or other things in relation to the collective trauma(s);  creating sense of urgency and the need to act now/need for new legislation or regulation; i.c. emphasizing pressing need for immediate reaction and/or pressing for new or reformed law or regulation;  showing vulnerability; i.c. emphasizing weaknesses and likelihood to become a victim;  showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was (not) effective; i.c. collective trauma(s) serves to illustrate the failing of previous legislation or regulation;  showing an infringement upon (second amendment) rights, freedom and liberties; i.c. emphasizing the effect upon rights, liberties and freedom of US citizens in relation to collective trauma(s);  emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public; i.c. using trauma to illustrate political or public overreaction after collective trauma event(s);  emphasizing abnormality of event; i.c. emphasizing the uniqueness or not common occurrence of collective trauma event(s);  emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; i.c. relating collective trauma(s) to many other events and incidents, emphasizing the common and frequent occurrence;  reassuring the audience of security; i.c. using a collective trauma to reassure people of their security;  downplaying the event; i.c. effort to make the collective trauma or its effects upon society, politics or victims look smaller than it is. This last list of indicators regarding the function has been complemented during the analysis when the function of a particular use was not part of this list of indicators yet. Now that the indicators of both concepts have been discussed, it is time to see how they all have their place within the research and its methodology.

34 |

3.1.4 Type of research

This study is a historiographic, qualitative research that is explorative in nature. A qualitative discourse analysis is applied to an embedded single case design. As the research question and operationalization have made clear, this study focuses on the role of collective trauma in acts of securitization. The case, that is in this study an issue that is being securitized, comprises the gun debate in the United States and is explained in more detail in the next section of this chapter. For many decades, American gun politics have received a lot of attention as a political and societal debate and as a field of study. This research tries to approach the debate from another analytical background and offer a new perspective to the existing works. By looking at the gun debate from a perspective of securitization and collective memory and through the application of discourse analysis and a historiographic approach, it tries to draw the attention to collective trauma as part of securitization’s context, audience and, therefore, the act itself. A three-year period of the gun debate will be the time frame of the case, from early 2013 till early 2016. This period is chosen to rule out any great changes in the political context of the debate. As it is the aim of this research to track and analyse, in a historiographical manner, the debate over a certain period, it is relevant to keep the political circumstances relatively stable. A different presidential administration could change the tone of the debate, but neither the difference in tone nor a comparison in any other way between two or more administrations is the objective of this study. Therefore, the case period falls entirely within President Obama’s second term. Another reason, from a practical perspective, is that the recency of this period ensures better coverage and registration of speeches and other texts, also because this period includes the run-up to the next presidential election. Within this period, six moments will serve as points of reference and operate in the case design as units of analysis. Most of these moments are collective traumatic events that took place in this period. Around these six moments, the usage and function of collective trauma within the securitizing discourse is reconstructed and it becomes clear how political opponents in the debate, the gun control advocates and the gun rights advocates, use the same traumatic event for different securitizing aims. In the end, the study tries to carefully, keeping in mind the limitations of the case, link the results back to the body of knowledge. In specific, the facilitating conditions of securitization, in particular the context and the audience of the act, and what the practical and theoretical implications of a better conscience of the role of collective trauma could mean for securitizing actors and audiences. It would be interesting to additionally study the effect of collective trauma on the success of a securitizing move by looking, for

35 | instance, at audience reception or media commentary, but this is not part of this research for two reasons. First, there are not really any commentaries or discussions that directly address the use of collective trauma in the texts by securitizing actors, only the texts as a whole are often addressed. In these cases, a positive reception or reaction by audience or media to the text in general does not say a lot about the effect of using collective trauma in their texts. Second, studying this effect would, thus, require extensive statistical research where the difference between a large number of articles with and without collective trauma usage can be studied and all other potential factors that influence the success of securitization can be relatively controlled.

3.1.5 Methodology

As stated in the previous paragraph, this study analyses securitizing acts in various types of texts to grasp the role of collective trauma in the discourse. Consequently, a logical method to study these texts and the discourse is to apply a qualitative discourse analysis. Buzan, Wæver and De Wilde (1998) of the Copenhagen School already said it:

“The way to study securitization is to study discourse and political constellations.” (p. 25) Thierry Balzacq (2011b) describes a methodology for discourse analysis with limited formalism, but includes the basic steps and focuses on the qualitative aspects (p. 41). To him discourse analysis should be aimed at establishing “the meaning of texts shaped by distinct contexts” (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 40). This is applicable to this study, because getting grip on this shaping ability of the context is the main driver of this research, in specific collective trauma as part of this context. Furthermore, this research does not only aim to answer a how-question, that is, if present, the use, but also aim to find an answer to the why-question, that is the function or meaning of that use. The analysis of this study follows the basic steps for discourse analysis which are formulated by Balzacq (2011b). The first step is to look at the intratextuality of texts (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). The analysis of intratextual appearance of securitization consists of an analysis of the kind of action the text tries to achieve, heuristic artefacts, and interactions (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). This step matches with the second set of indicators for the concept of securitization that cover this intratextuality. Because the analysis in this study focuses on collective trauma within the securitizing acts, only those parts within the texts that use collective trauma are analysed. It is therefore necessary to use the first set of indicators for the concept of collective trauma to check whether this particular discursive usage is or refers to a collective trauma. Furthermore, as stated in the previous section, the intratextual indicators of securitization that contain direct

36 | mentioning, various heuristic artefacts and interaction are analysed in combination with and in light of collective trauma. A final addition to this intratextual analysis also stems from the focus on collective trauma within securitization. Balzacq’s methodology looks at the kind of action the securitizing text as a whole tries to achieve, but for this study an analysis of the kind of action a particular use of collective trauma tries to achieve would be interesting. In other words, the last piece of this intratextual step is the analysis of the function of collective trauma usage in the securitizing act and this is reflected in the final set of indicators of the concept of collective trauma. The second step focuses on intertextual discourse and the construction of securitization between texts (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). This step corresponds to the last set of indicators of the concept of securitization and analyses reactions, interaction and references to earlier securitizing texts of the securitizing actor himself or other securitizing actors (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 43). Only securitizing texts that are part of this analysis and those acts or actors that are clearly mentioned, but are not part of this research, are included in the analysis of this intertextual step. It is important for this intertextual element that the securitizing texts are analysed in chronological order to prevent confusion with regard to the time line. Together these two basic steps form the discourse analysis as formulated by Balzacq (2011b). In practice, this means that it is for each text necessary to go through the total list of indicators, that are part of this methodology. Some indicators are connected to the text as a whole, others to individual uses of collective trauma. A complete overview of the results per text is included in the Appendix. It is important to note, and it cannot be stressed enough, that the application of this methodology on the data does not lead to a quantitative, statistical analysis. An analysis of numbers and figures is not the aim of this type of discourse analysis. Instead, this methodology leads to a qualitative, historiographic, and specific analysis which enables this study to say something about the course of the gun debate and the role of collective trauma in the securitizing discourse and, moreover, to make some careful, tentative statements, linking back to the body of knowledge, about the theorization of the role of collective trauma in the context of securitization. So, exact numbers are not used in the analysis to describe the use and function of collective trauma in the securitizing texts. Rather, next to descriptions of how it is used and what the exact function is, indications are given of the magnitude and variety of the use of collective trauma and its function, that matches with the results (see Appendix for a full list of results per text). This ranges from wordings like ‘singular’, ‘limited’, and ‘a couple’ when the quantity of use, functions, or variety is not that high, to wordings like ‘multiple’, ‘widely’,

37 |

‘varied’, and ‘extensive’ when there are relatively more or many results. Another reason why exact numbers and figures are of limited added value to the analysis is because the analysed texts are all differing in length and type. This last point is also addressed in the next paragraph when triangulation of texts and comparability in relation to data collection.

3.2 Case study

First, the type of case study is described and the case, including the period that is studied, is explained. The second paragraph discusses sampling and legitimation in relation to the units of analysis. Finally, the last paragraph focuses on data collection, methods, limitations and the amount and different types of texts.

3.2.1 Type

The case study of this research is an embedded single case design and analyses a period in the securitization of the gun control vs. gun rights debate in the United States. A single case design can work well with the qualitative methodology and the historiographic approach. The period of the case that is studied is a three-year period from early 2013 till early 2016. This period starts with two key moments in last few years with regard to gun legislation development: the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of January 24, 2013, and the submission of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment on April 11, 2013, to introduce universal background checks in gun sales. Both were defeated in the Senate on April 17, 2013. In early 2016, the analysed period ends with the start of the presidential primaries and caucuses and ideas and statements of presidential candidates in relation to gun politics for the future. These two points of reference mark the beginning and the end of the case period and function as two units of analysis. Other units of analysis within this period are described in the next paragraph on sampling. All of these units are selected because they are potential moments of change that have the ability to alter and redefine the American gun debate. A limitation of this research is that is a relatively small period and a relatively small case. But, despite this limitation, after analysis it is possible to say something about the use and function of trauma in this period, how it developed and influenced both sides of the debate.

38 |

3.2.2 Sampling and legitimation

The units of analysis that are within the defined period of the case are all mass shootings in the United States. A snapshot of the American gun debate is taken each time after these points of reference by analysing securitizing texts from, preferably, both sides of the debate, which is discussed in the next paragraph about data. In this way, it is not only possible to track the course of the debate in this period, but also analyse the immediate influence of a fresh collective trauma on the securitizing discourse of the gun debate. Three mass shootings are selected, within the case period, based on the highest amount of fatalities of all the mass shootings that took place. On the one hand, these largest shootings certainly meet all indicators about whether they are collective traumas and, on the other hand, these events generated enough national attention to stir up the national gun debate. Thus, these three events are potential moments of change in the gun debate. The three shootings are the Washington Navy Yard Shooting of September 16, 2013, the Charleston Church Shooting of June 18, 2015, and the 2015 San Bernardino Attack of December 2, 2015. The first of these shootings happened on a military base and the last two on public ground. In view of having comparative data to the shooting on a military base, which is quite specific and rare in terms of location, a fourth mass shooting is added from within this time frame. This is the Chattanooga shootings of July 16, 2015, that also happened on two military installations. Together with the beginning and end point of reference, these four mass shooting form six moments in the time frame of the case that function as a unit of analysis.

3.2.3 Data collection

This study applies a qualitative discourse analysis on the data material. Balzacq (2011b) elaborates comprehensively on the selection of data and emphasizes that the nature of the data that is included is dependent upon the case and topic of the research (p. 41). In other words, the research question can already determine for a large part the types of text that need to be included (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 41). In the centre of this research are securitizing acts by politicians in relation to the gun debate. Because securitization is the main topic of research, the presence of a securitizing move is the main collection criteria. Thus, all texts in the data collection need to be a securitizing act and, therefore, contain all elements that constitute a securitizing act, as described in the first set of indicators for the concept of securitization. A good start in terms of data to collect for this research are spoken texts, i.e. speeches, by political gun rights and gun control proponents that correspond, with regard to the timing, with one of the six points of

39 | reference in the time frame. It is important to triangulate the texts to get a well-balanced data sample, because using only one type of texts can lead to a misrepresentation of the whole discourse (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 41). For instance, some texts are very formal and conservative, like memorial speeches, legislative texts and party programs, with language that is very controlled and restrained (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 41). Moreover, when a text is relatively formal, it can be expected that the use of collective trauma is less and more restrained. Therefore, this study triangulates the texts and does not only include speeches and statements by politicians, but also legislative bills, interviews, campaign programs and testimonies in senate committee hearings. A downside of the triangulation is the limited comparability between the texts, because of the various types of texts and their differences in formality, medium, and location. But, a comparison between the texts is not the goal of this research. The aim is to form a complete picture of the securitizing discourse on both sides of the debate and the role of collective trauma. Hence, the most important aspect is not the comparability between texts, but the fact that each text constitutes an act of securitization. Although, legislative bills and campaign programs are not speech acts, these can be important political instruments of securitization as long as they, in this case, reflect the issue of gun control or gun rights. Another aspect of data collection that is crucial is the right moment to stop collecting data, because not every text can be collected and included. Sometimes data collection seems like a never-ending process and this could lead to data overload (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 42). So, when is the right time to stop? Experienced discourse analysts stated that data collection can be ended when the intellectual marginal gain of an extra text is dropping or almost nothing and the content of this extra text is mainly repetitive and adds nothing to the already gathered discourse (Balzacq, 2011b, p. 42). This study follows this advice and stops collecting data when extra texts are repeating the discourse of the already gathered collection of texts and add nothing new. A final element that needs to be taken into account in the collection of data, is that the data is a good reflection of both political securitizing actors that are pro-gun control and those that are pro-gun rights. Since in a debate there are always two sides and in the analysis of this securitizing discourse both sides need to be sufficiently represented in the data collection. Of course, the absence of any securitizing texts of one of the sides after a certain event can also mean something to the overall discourse. This last situation was the case in the Washington Navy Yard shooting and the addition of a comparable, similar military installation shooting immediately proved its value. Table 3.1 gives an overview of the six units of analysis and corresponding data of both sides of the debate. The next chapter analyses these texts and elaborates on the results of the analysis.

40 |

Table 3.1 An overview of the units of analysis and data collection of both sides Events as units of Securitizing texts of gun control Securitizing texts of gun/Second analysis: advocates Amendment rights advocates Period around the -Speech by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) at press -Testimony of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) in the Assault Weapons Ban conference about the introduction of the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on of 2013 (January 24, AWB of 2013 (Jan. 24, 2013); Gun Violence (January 31, 2013); 2013) and the -Bill S.150 AWB 2013 (Reported to Senate: -Speech by Sen. Mike Lee (R) on the Senate Mar. 14, 2013) (by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D), floor (April 10, 2013). Manchin-Toomey Jan. 24, 2013); Amendment (April 11, -Manchin-Toomey Amendment (S.Amdt.715 2013) to S.649, submitted and proposed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D), Apr. 11, 2013); -Speech by President Obama from the Rose Garden of the White House (April 17, 2013). Washington Navy Yard -Speech by Sen. Dick Durbin (D) on the This event, remarkably, did not bring shooting (September Senate floor (Sept. 17, 2013); forward any reactions on the gun debate 16, 2013) -Speech by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) during a by any of the gun rights advocates. A press conference about gun violence (Sept. similar shooting in Chattanooga in 2015 18, 2013); (fourth unit of analysis), also at a military -Speech by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) base, did generate some pro-gun rights, during a press conference about gun violence Republican reactions. Even more (Sept. 18, 2013); remarkable is that the gun control -Speech by President Obama at advocates in US politics were mainly silent Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s about gun control right after this annual dinner (Sept. 22, 2013); Chattanooga attack. -Speech by President Obama at memorial service to honour victims of the Navy Yard shooting (Sept. 23, 2013). Charleston Church -Statement by President Obama from the -Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) at a town shooting (June 18, James S. Brady Press Briefing Room at the hall meeting in Red Oak, IA (June 19, 2015); 2015) White House (June 18, 2015); -Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) at a -Speech by Hillary Clinton (D) at the 2015 campaign event at CrossRoads Shooting United States Conference of Mayors (June Sports in Johnston, IA (June 20, 2015). 20, 2015); -Speech by Sen. Christopher Church (D) on the Senate floor (June 24, 2015). 2015 Chattanooga -Bill S.1835 (July 22, 2015) (by Sen. Tammy -Interview of Donald Trump (R) on shootings (July 16, Baldwin (D)). MSNBC’s Morning Joe (July 17, 2015); 2015) This is not really a gun control advocate text, -Bill S.1821 (July 21, 2015) (by Sen. Ron but serves to illustrate the differences Johnson (R)); between gun rights vs. gun control bills after -Bill S.1823 (July 21, 2015) (by Sen. Jerry the Chattanooga shooting. Other political Moran (R)); gun control advocates, remarkably, did not - Bill S.1839 (July 22, 2015) (by Sen. Rand contribute to the debate after this shooting. Paul (R)); -Interview of Sen. Jerry Moran (R) on Fox Business Network (July 22, 2015). San Bernardino attack -Speech by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) on the -Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) by Breitbart (December 2, 2015) Senate floor (Dec. 3, 2015); News (Dec. 3, 2015); -Speech by Hillary Clinton (D) at a campaign -Interview of Donald Trump (R) during a event in Fort Dodge, IA (Dec. 4, 2015); campaign rally in Spencer, IO (Dec. 5, -Speech by President Obama during his 2015). Weekly Presidential Address (Dec. 5, 2015). Policy for the future -Speech by President Obama on Executive -Vision of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) on the issue of (Early 2016) Actions on Guns at the White House (January second amendment rights; 5, 2016); - Vision of Donald Trump (R) on the issue of -Vision of Hillary Clinton (D) on the issue of second amendment rights. gun violence prevention. N.B. D = Democrat, R = Republican, Sen. = United States Senator, Rep. = Unites States Representative.

41 |

ANALYSIS AND RESULTS

This chapter presents the findings of this research and an analysis of these findings. The presentation of findings reflects in a historiographical way the qualitative discourse analysis that has been conducted and can be found in the Appendix to this thesis. This chapter holds on to the order of the six events or points of reference in the time frame that serve as units of analysis. These six units are snapshots of key moments in the debate that help to reconstruct the development over time. As the use and function of collective trauma in the analysed securitizing texts is the subject of the research question, this is the core focus of the analysis of the securitizing acts in the various units of analysis. Other aspects, such as the kind of actions a text is pursuing or references or reactions to other texts, are also addressed to provide context to the findings that reflect the role of collective trauma.

4.1 Findings and analysis

Each of the paragraphs starts with an introduction to the point of reference of the unit of analysis in question, followed by a table which contains the securitizing texts that belong to that unit of analysis. Subsequently, the findings of the texts are presented in a historiographical and descriptive manner, where each securitizing text will be discussed individually. Because of the nature of the applied discourse analysis, the choice has been made to not present all the findings from the analysis. The applied methodology leads to long lists of results per analysed text and this chapter only contains those findings that are most relevant and contribute to find an answer to the research question. The presentation of all findings would compromise the clarity and readability and would negatively affect the relevance of this chapter to this research. A complete overview of the results per text can be found in the Appendix. Another consequence of the historiographic approach and the qualitative discourse analysis is that an important part of the actual analysis is conducted alongside the presentation of findings. In this way, a historiographic presentation the discourse analysis is possible and a separation of the discussion of findings and analysis would only compromise the readability. At the end of each paragraph, a concise, concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the discourse is made of this particular episode in the securitization of the gun debate. 42 |

4.1.1 First unit of analysis: Period around the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (April 11, 2013)

The securitizing texts that were produced around the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment and during the political debate that took place in the months up till the voting in Congress on April 17, 2013, are spread over a period of almost three months. This time frame for one unit of analysis is the longest of all the units. The texts come from both gun control proponents and gun rights proponents. Despite the fact that this point of reference is not a collective trauma in itself, a frequent usage of collective trauma would not be surprising, because the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting of December 2012, together with a couple of other mass shootings in 2011 and 2012, formed the direct motivation to renew this push for federal legislation on background checks and assault weapons (Feinstein, n.d.).

Table 4.1 An overview of the securitizing texts of the first unit of analysis Securitizing texts of gun control -Speech by Sen. Diane Feinstein (D) at a press conference about the advocates introduction of the AWB of 2013 (Jan. 24, 2013); -Bill S.150 AWB 2013 (Reported to Senate: Mar. 14, 2013) (Introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), Jan. 24, 2013); -Manchin-Toomey Amendment (S.Amdt.715 to S.649, submitted and proposed by Sen. Joe Manchin (D), Apr. 11, 2013); -Speech by President Obama at the White House (Apr. 17, 2013). Securitizing texts of gun/Second -Testimony of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) in the Senate Judiciary Committee Amendment rights advocates Hearing on Gun Violence (January 31, 2013); -Speech by Sen. Mike Lee (R) on the Senate floor (April 10, 2013). The two coherent securitizing texts on January 24, 2013, by Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D), a well-known gun control advocate, show a strong emphasis on collective trauma in the discourse. Her first text is a speech at a press conference where she presented the bill on banning assault weapons that she was going to introduce to the Senate that same day. The text makes extensive use of mass shootings in a general way and mentions or refers to various mass shooting in specific (U.S. Capitol, 2013, January 24; see Appendix A., pp. 91-94). Within the many direct mentions of collective trauma and the occasional use of emotions, the shootings are named directly together with facts like the locations and the amount of deaths and injuries. The function of this particular use is to show a frequent occurrence of these kind of shootings and thereby creating a sense of urgency. It also has an emotional dimension and appeals to the American community by emphasizing the vulnerability of all communities and the fact that all these collective traumas took place at ordinary places of daily life. A large use of metaphors refers indirectly to various collective traumas by talking about the types of perpetrators, their gun use and how they got a gun. This has the function of creating an outgroup by naming categories of perpetrators, like grievance killers and mentally ill people, and showing

43 | vulnerability, anger and frustration about the ineffectiveness of current legislation and, therefore, the need for action. One example of these latter functions is the mentioning of an easy way for these perpetrators to get a gun through the gun show loophole, that is a direct reference to multiple mass shootings, e.g. the shootings at Sandy Hook, Columbine, Virginia Tech and in Aurora. The second text is the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, the legislative bill that was sponsored by Sen. Feinstein and marks one of the central points of this moment in the debate. Because of the formality of this type of text, limited or no use of collective trauma is to be expected. This is reflected by the absence of any direct mentioning of collective trauma in the largest part of the bill (Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, S.150, 2013; see Appendix A., pp. 87- 90). There is one indirect use of a metaphor that uses the collective trauma of some specific mass shootings. This use is the naming of a long list of weapons in Section 2, that are affected by this bill. Some of these weapons are an indirect reference to a collective trauma. For instance, the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle, that was used in the 2012 Aurora shooting, or the Bushmaster XM15, that was the perpetrator’s weapon of choice in the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting (Diaz, 2012, p. 1; Vasilogambros, 2016, April 14). Section 7 of the bill, that was added to the version of the bill that was reported to the Senate on April 14, 2013, does use direct wordings to describe mass shootings in a general way. This section states the need of a factual study into possible causes of mass shootings, specifically the influence of several contextual factors upon the perpetrators. The function of this limited use is to show the vulnerability, the urgency and that previous legislation is not working because of the availability of so many assault weapons to citizens including the perpetrators. The study prescribed in Section 7 also functions to emphasize that these collective trauma events are not normal, that the causes are identifiable and that legislation on gun control can be effective. Sen. Ted Cruz (R) spoke as a gun rights advocate on January 31, 2013, in the Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing that discussed the AWB. In his testimony, where he stated that more needs to be done to stop violent criminals but not through the ineffectiveness of the AWB, he strongly emphasized that the only effect this bill has, is harming the liberties and constitutional rights of law abiding citizens (Gun Violence: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, 2013; see Appendix A., pp. 108-113). His testimony is characterized by the wide and varied use of collective trauma, exclusively referring to mass shootings. In various uses of mass shootings in emotions, interactions and attempts to identify with the audience’s feelings, Sen. Cruz tries to sympathize, to evoke an emotional reaction and at the same time he stresses the vulnerability and the need for action. For instance, he attempts to appeal to a

44 | community of parents of young children by mentioning his own emotions as father of ‘two little girls’ and interacts with Mark Kelly, the husband of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, the survivor of an assassination attempt during the 2011 Tucson shooting, who attended the hearing. Furthermore, metaphors, stereotypes and analogies of collective trauma are used not only to create a sense of urgency, but also to emphasize that history has shown that the proposed legislation is not targeting perpetrators of mass shootings and will not reduce this violence. Other functions of this usage are to show that these particular collective traumas, like Sandy Hook and Tucson, lead to overreaction of politicians:

“Unfortunately in Washington, emotion often leads to bad policies. When a tragedy occurs, often this body rushes to act. And at times it seems the considerations of this body operate in a fact- free zone.” (Gun Violence: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, 2013; see Appendix A., p. 108) In his view, this emotional reaction often lead to the re-introduction of legislation that should target perpetrators of mass shootings, but instead infringes on the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Intertextually, the text directly refers to the AWB and to other texts of gun control advocates such as the speech text of Sen. Feinstein. Sen. Cruz stresses the overreaction of these opponents and, in specific, discusses the gun show loophole, that was mentioned by Sen. Feinstein, and questions the credibility of the studies that formed the basis of previous statements of these gun control advocates. Overall, it is a text with a use and function of collective trauma in which Sen. Cruz wants to show that, although he rejects the AWB, he does care about stopping these mass shootings. But, he also cares about protecting the Second Amendment rights and, therefore, warns for overreaction and misuse of the collective traumas by gun control proponents. To prevent this overreaction and infringement upon constitutional rights, his securitizing act focuses on the offenders of mass shootings and less on guns. The other securitizing text of a gun rights advocate is a speech on the Senate floor by Sen. Mike Lee (R) on April 10, 2013, a week before the voting of the bills. It is a text that considers the AWB and the expected amendment of Sen. Joe Manchin (D) and Sen. Pat Toomey (R) as harmful to the gun and Second Amendment rights of citizens and is aimed at filibustering these bills in the Senate (U.S. Senate, 2013, April 10; see Appendix A., pp. 114-117). As the speech of Sen. Lee was held more than two months after the first three texts, using collective trauma in the discourse in order to, for instance, sympathize with victims and their families, because it just happened, is less obvious.

45 |

The couple of metaphors that use mass shootings in a general way have the function in the discourse of questioning the impact on preventing violent incidents and stating that the only effect that is certain, is the negative consequences for the rights of law abiding citizens. Any urgency or need for action or new legislation to fight the occurrence of mass shooting is absent in this text. The final function of the use of collective trauma is to reassure the audience by stating that the Second Amendment rights serves as a first line of defence against events like mass shootings. A day later, the second key moment and securitizing act, that determined the course of the debate in this first unit of analysis, took place: the submission and proposal of the Manchin- Toomey Amendment. Logically, because of the official legislative nature of the document, the formality is similar to that of the text of the AWB (159 Cong. Rec. S2613-2618, daily ed. Apr. 11, 2013; see Appendix A., pp. 95-100). The use of collective trauma in the securitizing discourse, that consists, just as the other texts in this unit of analysis, of references to mass shootings, is limited to some direct references and metaphors. For example, the text states multiple times that current background checks and databases are failing in relation to mental illness and this clearly links to several mass shootings. Also, the references to the gun show loophole refers indirectly to specific mass shootings, like the Sandy Hook shooting, and is an important loophole that is targeted by installing the universal background checks that this amendment proposes. The amendment, furthermore, has an indirect link with the AWB. Just like the AWB, the Manchin-Toomey Amendment proposes the establishment of a commission to study the nature and root causes of acts of mass violence, including mass shootings. Overall, the function of the collective trauma use in this text is to show the vulnerability and shortcomings of the current situation and the need for new legislation. One week later on April 17, 2013, both the AWB and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment were defeated by a vote in the Senate. That day, after the vote was completed, President Obama gave a speech in which he discussed the defeated gun control proposals, this chapter in the gun control debate and the need for changes in policy and legislation (The White House, 2013, April 17; see Appendix A., pp. 101-107). Collective trauma is ubiquitous in the discourse of his text. Most of the different types of use are present, many of them direct mentions, metaphors, emotions, interactions and signs of empathy. The main function of using collective trauma is expressing and evoking frustration and anger about the failure of politics to accomplish the necessary change in respect of the victims of the shootings in Newtown and many other places, the families of these victims and all of ‘our kids’:

46 |

“Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders – - not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.” (The White House, 2013, April 17; see Appendix A., p. 101) Moreover, he calls out, in a very directive manner, to the American community of whom many supported new gun legislation to unite and resist against their leaders, who obstructed the bills, in name of the victims of these collective traumas. Obama appeals to the community of gun owners to not accept the dictation of gun lobbyists by stating that the bill showed an equal amount of respect to gun owners as to gun violence victims and by mentioning former Congresswoman Giffords who is not only a victim and supporter of this bill, but also a gun owner. This text also has a strong intertextual element by directly addressing the gun rights advocates, like Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee, who opposed the AWB. He addresses their lack of arguments and the few, in his view, weak arguments they did had, that were also seen in the texts of Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee, that entailed the negative effects on people’s Second Amendment rights, the impossibility of preventing all shootings and adding a ‘Big Brother’- element to the government’s gun control. In addition, Obama counters the comment of opponents that called the involvement of victims’ families in the lobby misplaced and ‘emotional blackmail’ by stating:

“Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?” (The White House, 2013, April 17; see Appendix A., p. 103) The most important function of the use of collective trauma in responding to the gun rights advocates is to create an outgroup of opponents who could not withstand the pressure of the gun lobby and future elections. Intertextually, he also refers to the actions and efforts of gun control advocates as Sen. Feinstein and more specifically to the efforts of Sen. Manchin and Sen. Toomey for pursuing a bipartisan amendment in response to the many tragedies over the past months.

Concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the first unit of analysis Most texts in this unit of analysis make varied use of collective trauma in their securitizing discourse, referring in all cases to specific mass shootings and the phenomenon of mass shootings as a whole. The functions of the usage of collective trauma serve the differing aims of the securitizing texts on both sides of the debate. On the side of the gun rights advocates, the main function of the used collective traumas is to warn the audience for three distinctive

47 | reasons. First, the ineffectiveness of the legislation that is proposed by the gun control proponents. The second reason to warn the audience follows from these ineffective proposals, because this causes, according to the gun advocates, infringements upon the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, that are vital as primary protection of citizens. The third reason is the overreaction to mass shootings by gun control advocates. For the discourse of gun control advocates, the use of collective trauma has mainly the function to emphasize anger and frustration about opponents, singling them out like Obama as people who could not resist the pressure from the gun lobby and future elections, and the fact that these mass shootings keep happening and are so widespread. This latter emphasis of the widespread aspect of the phenomenon of mass shootings also has the function to stress the need for new legislation, because current legislation is apparently ineffective. In addition, their texts often make use of collective trauma by emphasizing that a majority of Americans support their cause and by appealing to the American community as a whole to actively support them in their fight for new legislation. In the two more formal, legislative texts the role of collective trauma is less present, but at those instances when a reference is made in these texts to collective trauma, it becomes clear that this emphasizes the urgency of policy change.

4.1.2 Second unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013)

After the mass shooting in the Washington Navy Yard on September 16, 2013, there were multiple gun control advocates who performed a securitizing act and seized moments of remembrance and sympathizing to contribute to the securitization of gun control. Their opponents in this debate, the advocates of gun rights and Second Amendment rights, did not avail themselves of the opportunity to make a contribution to the gun debate, whether they did that consciously or not. So, this unit of analysis is characterized by an absence of securitizing texts from the advocates of gun rights.

Table 4.2 An overview of the securitizing texts of the second unit of analysis Securitizing texts of gun control -Speech by Sen. Dick Durbin (D) on the Senate floor (Sept. 17, 2013); advocates -Speech by Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) during a press conference about gun violence (Sept. 18, 2013); -Speech by Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) during a press conference about gun violence (Sept. 18, 2013); -Speech by President Obama at Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual dinner (Sept. 22, 2013); -Speech by President Obama at memorial service to honour victims of the Navy Yard shooting (Sept. 23, 2013). Securitizing texts of gun/Second None (This event, remarkably, did not bring forward any reactions on Amendment rights advocates the gun debate by any of the gun rights advocates. A similar shooting

48 |

in Chattanooga in 2015 (fourth unit of analysis), also at a military base, did generate some pro-gun rights, Republican reactions. Even more remarkable is that the gun control advocates in US politics were mainly silent about gun control right after this Chattanooga attack). Sen. Dick Durbin (D), Majority Whip, performed the first act of securitization on the Senate floor, the day after the shooting. The speech shows an extensive use of collective trauma in the discourse (U.S. Senate, 2013, September 17; see Appendix B., pp. 118-121). As this speech was held just a day after a mass shooting, it is not surprising that collective trauma is ever present in the text and that the collective trauma that is used is, for the most part, referring to the Washington Navy Yard shooting. The speech of Sen. Durbin uses a lot of direct wordings to describe this mass shooting and related facts and, moreover, uses this collective trauma in metaphors, emotions, interactions and to identify with the feelings of the audience. These feelings are in this case grief, incomprehension and astonishment about what has happened at the Navy Yard. Important functions of the use of the Navy Yard shooting is remembrance and sympathizing and, on the whole, it is appealing to people’s emotions in various ways. It functions as an appeal to the American community and tries to unite all citizens to come together in the collective shock and frustration of the moment for the cause of stricter gun control. The use of collective trauma emphasizes the vulnerability of the community and it is inclined to scare the audience a bit. Some direct references to the perpetrator have the function to demonise this offender by portraying his background as deranged and abnormal. Furthermore, an outgroup is created by referring to the mentally unstable and other potential misusers of guns in relation to mass shootings in general. These latter function, of course, go together with functions such as creating a need for legislative change and emphasizing the failure of current policy. In this light, the speech also refers intertextually to the bipartisan effort of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment to illustrate the need for new legislation and how this could be effective in keeping gun out hands of mentally unstable persons like the Washington Navy Yard shooter. The next two securitizing texts originate from a press conference about gun violence that was held the second day after the shooting on September 18, 2013, and was attended by many family members of victims of mass shootings. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D) and Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D) were among the speakers and delivered, as advocates for the gun control camp, a securitizing speech act. The speech text of Rep. Pelosi shows great and varied use of collective trauma by making use of many direct mentions of various specific mass shootings and several metaphors, interactions, emotions and phrases to identify with the needs and feelings of the

49 | audience in relation to mass shootings (Newtown Action Alliance, 2013, September 18; see Appendix B., pp. 122-125). Of course, this is not surprising for a speech that is held just days after a deadly mass shooting, that has ‘gun violence’ as central theme of the conference and where lots of families of victims of various mass shootings are present. The main function of the collective trauma in her text is to remember the victims, sympathize with the families, and to evoke emotional reactions. Not only in relation to the Washington Navy Yard shooting, but also with regard to other shootings such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. This is often done through direct interactions with the families that were present, by addressing those who have told their stories. Uniting these families is also an important function and, in addition, there is an appeal to Americans to unite, by mentioning the widespread and frequent occurrence of the mass shootings. Just as with many other texts by gun control advocates, the use of collective trauma in the texts of Rep. Pelosi emphasizes the need for action and creates a sense of urgency. She states:

“You know, every time one of these episodes happens -- like yesterday, and Aurora, and Newtown -- we have a moment of silence in the Capitol. It's a tradition. But we're almost unworthy of that tradition to think the moment of silence should make us feel better. When the fact is, we don't need a moment of silence. We need a day of action.” (Newtown Action Alliance, 2013, September 18; see Appendix B., p. 122) The securitizing text of Sen. Blumenthal contains the same varied and extensive use of collective trauma as the speech text of Rep. Pelosi (Newtown Action Alliance, 2013, September 18; see Appendix B., 126-129). It is clearly an act that was held within the same spirit and also refers to the trauma of mass shooting by interacting with the present family members. Similarly, the function of the use of collective trauma is aimed at remembrance, showing compassion and emphasize emotion. With the help of collective trauma, a feeling of urgency is created by using mass shootings to point at frustrations and to create a light scare for the new normal of mass violence. Intertextually, Sen. Blumenthal directly refers and reacts to the call of Rep. Pelosi to exchange days of silence after mass shootings for days of action, by affirming the need for this. Finally, he refers to the AWB and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment to show that proposed legislation can work against mass shootings and is definitely needed. The last two texts in this second unit of analysis are both from President Obama. His first text is a short speech that he gave at the annual dinner of an American educational foundation. For the largest part of his text, he makes use of collective trauma in the discourse (Jackson & Kennedy, 2013, September 22; see Appendix B., pp. 130-132). Although the text is of short length, he mentions various mass shootings in specific, a mass shooting in Chicago, the Washington Navy Yard, Sandy Hook in Newtown, Aurora, Tucson and New Orleans, by 50 | directly referring to them, using emotions and metaphors and trying to identify with feelings of the audience. Again, the share of remembrance, appealing to the American community and arousing the audience emotionally in the function of collective trauma usage is high. Other main functions are emphasizing the widespread nature of the problem of mass shootings and the need to respond and act now. Also, frustration is reflected through the use of collective trauma and, in addition, an outgroup of gun control opponents is created, whose effort are obstructing new gun legislation, by stating:

“We fought a good fight earlier this year, but we came up short. And that means we got to get back up and go back at it, because as long as there are those whose fights are making it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns, then we have to work as hard as possible, for the sake of our children, we have got to be the ones who are willing to do more work to make it harder.” (Jackson & Kennedy, 2013, September 22; see Appendix B., p. 130) This function of singling out an outgroup of anti-gun control advocates is something Obama also did in his text that was part of the first unit of analysis, but this time it follows a different reasoning. In the first unit, the people in this outgroup where obstructers who fell for the money of lobby groups and the pressure of future elections. Now, these obstructers are also called enablers of mass shootings, who “make it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns” (Jackson & Kennedy, 2013, September 22). His second text in this unit of analysis is different in nature. This speech text is a memorial speech that President Obama held at the Washington Navy Yard during a memorial service for the victims. As the central theme of a memorial speech is remembrance and honouring the victims of the collective trauma, it can be expected that the collective trauma in question, i.c. the Washington Navy Yard shooting, is frequently used in the discourse (Slack, 2013, September 23; see Appendix B., pp. 133-143). This speech act qualifies as a securitizing act in the gun debate, because President Obama uses this moment to discuss gun control. The text is overflowing of uses of collective trauma to support the arguments of his securitization effort. The collective trauma he uses in the discourse is mainly related to mass shootings, but on a few occasions he refers to the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. A first reference to the assassination of Dr. King is an anecdote about the public reaction of Robert Kennedy to his death, which has an emotional function in the discourse. Later in his text, Obama addresses both of them to show that change is possible:

“What Robert Kennedy understood, what Dr. King understood, what all our great leaders have always understood, is that wisdom does not come from tragedy alone or from some sense of resignation in the fallibility of man. Wisdom comes through the recognition that tragedies such as this are not inevitable, and that we possess the ability to act and to change, and to spare others the pain that drops upon our hearts.” (Slack, 2013, September 23; see Appendix B., p. 137) 51 |

Obama, furthermore, uses all kinds of direct mentions and heuristic artefacts, with the exception of analogies, to back up his arguments that the amount of mass shooting and the reaction to tragedies is totally different in other developed countries, that Americans are not different than these other nations, that something can be done about it, and that it is a widespread phenomenon. He also refers to his text in the first unit of analysis by, again, admitting that not every tragedy can be prevented, but that this is no reason to not even try it. Intertextually, another indirect reference is made to the text of Sen. Blumenthal, by expressing the fear that these acts of mass violence have become the new normal. The specific function of the collective trauma usage that support all these arguments is comparable to the other texts in this unit of analysis and entails, among others, an emotional appeal to Americans, emphasizing urgency and remembrance. A function that is different from previous texts is that besides from emphasizing the frequent occurrence and widespread nature of mass shootings, Obama stresses the importance of not seeing this particular act of mass violence, the Navy Yard shooting, as ordinary, but as an abnormal event.

Concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the second unit of analysis and a comparison with the previous unit of analysis Although the main functions of the use of collective trauma are corresponding with the functions that were seen in the securitizing texts of gun control advocates in the first unit of analysis, these functions are more regularly accompanied by an emotional driver. Uses of collective trauma with the function to evoke emotional reaction, remember victims, sympathize with families, and unify and appeal to the American people are significantly more often used. An important reason for this is the proximity in time of the shooting at the Navy Yard that was clearly used in a large part of the discourse. This recent collective trauma led also to some additional arguments and function of collective trauma in the texts of the gun control advocates. First, the Washington Navy Yard shooting is used to emphasize the urgency of new policy on background checks and emphasize the vulnerability of Americans, because the perpetrator had a history in mental health care and was still able to buy a gun. Second, the language towards the gun rights proponents toughens as they are put away by President Obama as enablers of these mass tragedies. This use of collective trauma consisted of many emotions, interactions, and attempts to identify with feelings of the audience, that matched with the abovementioned functions. In contrast to their opponents in the gun debate, the securitizing actors all made the choice to devote their speeches not only to the remembrance of the victims, but to also make a securitizing

52 | move for gun control. The absence of securitizing moves by gun rights advocates is a big difference with regard to the first unit of analysis. Although, the frustration about a lack of action and the created outgroup of pro-gun politicians are still part of these pro-gun control acts, there is no real action-reaction dynamic in this unit, because the (standard) arguments and responses of the opposition are absent.

4.1.3 Third unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015)

The mass shooting in the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, South Carolina, represents the third point of reference in the time frame of this case and is the second, consecutive unit of analysis that is a collective trauma in itself. Because the securitizing texts are held, similar to the texts after the Washington Navy Yard shooting, just after the event, a significant use of trauma, with the function to evoke emotion and pay respect, can be expected. The five texts that are included are from both gun control advocates as well as gun rights advocates. The fact that Dylann Roof, the suspect of the Charleston shooting, had possible racial motives and has been charged with federal hate crime charges, might have influence on the role of collective trauma in the discourse (Apuzzo, 2015, July 22).

Table 4.3 An overview of the securitizing texts of the third unit of analysis Securitizing texts of gun control -Statement by President Obama at the White House (June 18, 2015); advocates -Speech by Hillary Clinton (D) at the 2015 United States Conference of Mayors (June 20, 2015); -Speech by Sen. Christopher Church (D) on the Senate floor (June 24, 2015). Securitizing texts of gun/Second -Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) at a town hall meeting in Red Oak, IA Amendment rights advocates (June 19, 2015); -Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) at a campaign event at CrossRoads Shooting Sports in Johnston, IA (June 20, 2015). What immediately distinguishes the statement of President Obama, chronologically the first text of this unit of analysis, from all the previous texts, is that the collective trauma that is used in the discourse has not remained limited to mass shootings or a singular mentioning of another collective trauma (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2015, June 18; see Appendix C., pp. 144-148). Various uses in this text, mainly direct wordings, metaphors, and interactions, refer to other collective traumas in American history, namely racial segregation and slavery by describing these dark chapters of racial hatred and violence of the past. An illustration of Obama’s usage of these traumas that adds another emotional layer to the discourse by making it more personal and more tragic:

“Mother Emanuel is, in fact, more than a church. This is a place of worship that was founded by African Americans seeking liberty. This is a church that was burned to the ground because its 53 |

worshipers worked to end slavery. When there were laws banning all-black church gatherings, they conducted services in secret. When there was a nonviolent movement to bring our country closer in line with our highest ideals, some of our brightest leaders spoke and led marches from this church’s steps. This is a sacred place in the history of Charleston and in the history of America.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2015, June 18; see Appendix C., p. 144) Also, so shortly after this mass shooting in Charleston, the share of remembrance, sympathizing, and responding to emotions is significant. President Obama, furthermore, makes an urgent appeal to American communities for the need to act and uses the violent episodes of racial hatred and mass shootings in American history to unite people. Finally, Obama makes an intertextual, indirect reference to his memorial speech at the Washington Navy Yard. He stated in that speech that acts similar to the mass shootings in the United States do not happen in other advanced societies, thereby emphasizing the abnormality of the frequency and gravity of mass shootings in America and the need for new legislation on guns. The next securitizing text is a short speech Hillary Clinton gave at the United States Conference of Mayors two days after Obama’s speech. She uses collective trauma by using metaphors, emotions, interactions, and sentences that try to identify with feelings of the audience (ABC News, 2015, June 20; see Appendix C., pp. 149-151). In contrast with securitizing acts that took place earlier in this unit of analysis, she makes no direct reference to the Charleston church shooting or related facts. This is in congruence with the little use of collective trauma that has a function to remember the victims and sympathize with the families. Evoking emotions, emphasizing frustration and appealing to the people are among the most frequently used functions. A function that is present in the overall discourse of the text is the emphasis on the importance of new legislation. An important argument that Clinton underlines, in relation to this need, is how stunning it is how certain groups in society, like domestic abusers and mentally ill people, can still get guns. This also has the function to create an outgroup by indirectly referring to multiple mass shootings that were caused by perpetrators with a mental health issue. Additionally, she indirectly uses another collective trauma by naming another outgroup who can purchase guns with too much ease. Clinton adds to the list of abuser and mental patients, people that are on the terrorist watch list or no-fly list, thereby referring to various incidents of domestic terrorism, linking to the September 11 attacks. This reference gives Clinton’s call for action an even more urgent character and, therefore, adds to the discourse. The speech intertextually refers in a direct manner to earlier discourses of President Obama. She agrees with his statements that problems with the effectiveness of current gun

54 | legislation must be handled with urgency and that politics regarding gun control is not helping this process. These are statements that he also made in texts that is included in this research. The following two texts after the mass shooting in Charleston are both from gun rights and Second Amendment rights advocate Ted Cruz. Both texts are interviews he gave to various reporters at campaign events in the state of Iowa. The first of his interviews was held at a town hall meeting on June 19, 2015, and was chronologically the second text of this unit of analysis. In his securitizing discourse, Sen. Cruz makes use of collective trauma, mass shootings and racial hatred, in form of emotions, metaphors and direct references to collective trauma events (Roth, 2015, June 21; see Appendix C., pp. 160-162). The function of this use has, one day after the mass shooting, of course, emotional aims and serves to remember the victims and morally support the families. But, the main functions of the collective trauma use are in line with the main arguments of this text. These functions are: to show that Second Amendment rights are violated, to make clear that gun control politicians are reacting disproportionately, and to depict these gun control advocates as an outgroup. Sen. Cruz starts by referring to acts of President Obama and other Democrats who, in his view, were using a tragedy like Charleston for partisan advantage:

“It’s sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as an excuse, not to go after people with serious mental illness or people who are repeat felons or criminals, but rather try to use it as an excuse to take away Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, those are altogether different issues.” (Roth, 2015, June 21; see Appendix C., p. 160) He here alters the line of argumentation of these pro-gun control politicians by stating that they try to divide people and, instead of fighting violent, deranged criminals and mental illness, come after the Second Amendment right of good citizens to keep and bear weapons. This is significantly different from his previous act in the first unit of analysis, where he argued that gun control efforts are just harming Second Amendment rights and these gun control politicians were rushed and overreacting. Now, he accuses these actors of deliberately misusing the tragedies of mass shootings for their own advantage. He furthermore continuously emphasizes the sick and deranged character of the Charleston shooter and people like him to demonise this offender and create an outgroup of these violent criminals. This puts the focus on fighting these criminals and draws the attention away from gun control, which is to Sen. Cruz the same as limiting the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. The second interview of Ted Cruz was given a day later at another campaign event, ironically, at a shooting range. The use of collective trauma in the discourse of the text is again present (Caffeinated Thoughts, 2015, June 20; see Appendix C., pp. 163-166). Although the

55 | discourse uses relatively more interactions and attempts to identify with feelings and needs of the audience, the use and function of collective trauma shows a similar pattern. This use helps to emphasize the abnormality of the Charleston church shooting and demonizes the offender by portraying him as “the face of evil” (Caffeinated Thoughts, 2015, June 20; see Appendix C., p. 163). It supports the line of reasoning that the focus should be on tackling sick and deranged criminals. Sen. Cruz, intertextually, also reacts again to President Obama and his Democrat gun control advocates, who according to him use mass shooting to push legislation aimed at constraining the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. To support this argument, he refers to the efforts of Democrats after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, such as the AWB and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment, that were included in the first unit of analysis. The last text of this unit of analysis is from gun control advocate, Sen. Christopher Church (D), who gave a speech on the Senate floor on June 24, 2015. The securitizing act he delivers, makes extensive and diverse use of collective trauma (U.S. Senate, 2015, December 3; see Appendix C., pp. 152-159). He uses collective trauma primarily to refer to mass shootings and the Charleston church shooting in specific, but he also uses slavery and racial segregation in his discourse. Naturally, the functions of remembrance and responding to emotions of the audience are abundantly present, just as in the texts of most of the other securitizing actors in this unit of analysis. Moreover, Sen. Church uses collective trauma to emphasize the widespread and frequent nature of mass shootings in America. He uses it to react to the various accusations of gun control opponents, like Sen. Cruz, who argued that President Obama and Senate Democrats are misusing tragedies like Charleston. Sen. Church responds:

“If you can't talk about anti-gun violence policy the day after a large number of Americans are shot, then you will never talk about anti-gun violence policy, because on average 86 people die from gun violence every single day. But even if you accept that there is never a bad time that we can talk about how we can end this carnage, then we also have to have the courage to take on all of the other ridiculous arguments about why we can't act.” (U.S. Senate, 2015, December 3; see Appendix C., p. 153) This also reflects another important function of the used collective trauma, namely expressing the need for action. Sen. Church stresses the need for real action over ineffective and, with regard to mass shootings, meaningless measures. These latter measures include removing the Confederate flag, a symbol of slavery and oppression, from a government building and shops and arming people in churches. Where the function of using mass shootings as a collective trauma in this securitizing discourse might be straightforward, the function of the use of slavery and racial segregation might be less clear. Sen. Church uses these latter two

56 | collective traumas to illustrate the difference between action and words and what real action entails by referring to the fights of the ancestors of the victims in the Emanuel AME Church:

“In South Carolina, Reverend Pinckney new something about real action. He supported things like expanded background checks and body cameras for police. Maybe that is because he came from a family of action. His father and grandfather were both pastors who fought to end white- only political primaries and segregated school busing. He was not just about condemnation. He lived his life to effectuate political change.” (U.S. Senate, 2015, December 3; see Appendix C., pp. 154-155) Although the usage of the traumas of slavery and racial segregation have their function in the discourse such as calling for action or uniting, like Obama used it in his previous text, and these functions are not conflicting with the rest of the text, it raises the question if the piling of various collective traumas from history is beneficial for the urgency of the act and if it creates an overkill of collective trauma. Moreover, it can be stated that the appeals that make use of slavery and racial segregation are aimed at a different, more specified audience than appeals that are generally referring to mass shootings or terrorism. So, does this piling of collective traumas creates issues of compatibility in terms of the targeted audience? A last reference to previous texts is the use of the argument, that was also formulated by President Obama, that fellow advanced countries do not know the same amount of mass violence.

Concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the third unit of analysis and a comparison with the previous units of analysis What stands out in the various securitizing acts in this unit of analysis is a greater diversity of collective trauma. Still, the use of mass shooting, both generally and specifically, is most prominent, but occasionally the collective traumas of slavery, racial segregation and domestic terrorism are also used and have a significant function in the discourse. This is the first unit of analysis that is linked immediately to a mass shooting where both sides have their acts of securitization. Whether or not this two-side activity is the main reason for it, the discourses are emotional and lively, make use of lots of collective trauma and address to opposing party quite frequently in a direct manner, for instance when countering arguments or responding to certain accusations. Again, remembrance of victims, showing support for families and friends, and evoking emotional reactions are seen in all texts as important functions of the collective trauma usage that specifically links to the Charleston shooting. Furthermore, the debate about whether it is appropriate or not to call for action after a tragedy occurs, played a large part in this unit of analysis. Overall, the problem statement is very different on both sides of the gun debate. Where

57 | the gun rights advocates do not go further than the problem of violent and deranged criminals after the Charleston church shooting, the gun control advocates see a multifaceted problem after this shooting, that includes mental health, gun control and, in this particular case, racial hatred. The use of collective trauma by this latter group aims at uniting Americans and achieve policy change, but every inclusion of gun restrictions leads to a heavy reaction by their opponents and an appeal to the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms of law abiding citizens. The additional argumentation that pro-gun control Democrats deliberately come after these rights and do not target the deranged perpetrators of mass shootings was not yet visible in earlier units of analysis.

4.1.4 Fourth unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015)

The 2015 Chattanooga shootings share an important feature with the Washington Navy Yard shooting, the second unit of analysis. Both of these shootings took place at military installations. In Washington the location was inside the Navy Yard and in Chattanooga the two locations of the shootings were a military recruiting centre and a US Navy Reserve centre. The fact that these shootings happened at a military installation stirred up the debate on the side of gun rights advocates who pointed at the issue that these military installations are all so-called gun-free zones. These zones were installed after various incidents and prohibit people from carrying firearms, unless they are performing law enforcement or security duties (Department of Defense, 1992, February 25; Military Police, 1993, March 25, p.1). In view of the gun advocates, this regulation makes these installations and the people within vulnerable to mass shootings. Despite this crucial similarity between the second and fourth unit of analysis, the differences between the two units of analysis are equally important. After the Washington Navy Yard shooting there were calls to repeal this regulation, but these came mainly from right-wing, pro-gun, political commentators, who are not part of this study (Boehlert, 2013, September 17). Securitizing moves by pro-gun rights politicians in response to the Navy Yard shooting were absent, in contrast to the presence of multiple securitizing acts by gun control advocates. The 2015 Chattanooga shooting shows a totally different pattern. Here the gun control advocates did not engage in any securitizing act, but several gun rights advocates did. This unit of analysis entails two television interviews and four legislative bills, which are almost all aimed at changing the regulation of gun-free zones.

58 |

Table 4.4 An overview of the securitizing texts of the fourth unit of analysis Securitizing texts of gun control -Bill S.1835 (July 22, 2015) (by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D)) (This is not advocates really a gun control advocate text, but serves to illustrate the differences between gun rights vs. gun control bills after the Chattanooga shootings. Other political gun control advocates, remarkably, did not contribute to the debate after this shooting). Securitizing texts of gun/Second -Interview of Donald Trump (R) on MSNBC’s Morning Joe (July 17, Amendment rights advocates 2015); -Bill S.1821 (July 21, 2015) (by Sen. Ron Johnson (R)); -Bill S.1823 (July 21, 2015) (by Sen. Jerry Moran (R)); - Bill S.1839 (July 22, 2015) (by Sen. Rand Paul (R)); -Interview of Sen. Jerry Moran (R) on Fox Business Network (July 22, 2015). The first text is a short interview of Donald Trump with a TV panel show a day after the shootings in Chattanooga. Trump is asked for a reaction to the shootings and what can be done about it (Morning Joe, 2015, July 22; see Appendix D., pp. 172-174). In his interview, Trump makes use of collective trauma that is mainly referring to the Chattanooga shooting in direct mentions, metaphors and interactions. This serves his securitizing discourse with a combination of functions. First of all, he speaks about the men who died in Chattanooga in function of remembrance. In addition, he mentions that they were highly decorated and well-trained gun experts who were not allowed to carry guns in the facilities and were easy targets for a madman. These direct references to collective trauma have the function to show the vulnerability of the victims to a perpetrator like this, to show that current policy is not effective and to express the urgent need for policy change. So, the use and function of collective trauma in this discourse by Trump is aimed at supporting his argument that the only way for military personnel to protect themselves is to expand gun rights by abolishing specific gun limitations within military installations. On the 21st and 22nd of July, a couple of days after the Chattanooga shootings, three Senate bills were introduced separately by Republican gun rights proponents. These bills all comprised, more or less, legislation with the same objective that also reflected the words that were put forward by Donald Trump. The bills of Sen. Ron Johnson (R), Sen. Jerry Moran (R) and Sen. Rand Paul (R) all aim at repealing the bans on carrying firearms at military installations and permitting members of the Armed Forces to carry guns (Armed Forces Self- Defense Act, S.1821, 2015; see Appendix D., pp. 175-179; A bill to safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces military installations by repealing bans on military personnel carrying firearms, and for other purposes, S.1823, 2015; see Appendix D., pp. 180-184; Servicemembers Self-Defense Act of 2015, S.1839, 2015; see Appendix D., pp. 185-189). As seen before in this research in legislative texts, the language is quite formal and, consequentially, the usage of collective trauma is limited. The existing use is composed mainly

59 | of general and indirect metaphors that point at the 2015 Chattanooga shootings and other, similar shootings. The main function of this use of collective trauma is to create a sense of urgency and to make clear that a change in legislation is needed. The text by Sen. Moran distinguishes itself by using a direct mentioning of a list of mass shootings at military installations, including the 2009 Ford Hood shooting, the Washington Navy Yard shooting and the 2015 Chattanooga shootings. This particular use has some additional functions in the discourse, namely emphasizing the vulnerability of military personnel, the failing of existing legislation and the frequency of events like these. On July 22, another Senate bill was introduced by Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D) on the very same topic as the other three. Although the topic, i.e. military installations, and the desired end result, i.e. military installations that are more secure, are the same, the solution is distinctively different (Military Facilities Force Protection Act of 2015, S.1835, 2015; see Appendix D., pp. 167-171). Through a formal use of metaphors, that are indirectly referring to a mass shooting like Chattanooga by explicitly naming military recruiting centres among target locations for the bill, Sen. Baldwin addresses the vulnerability of the military installations and the need for action. She argues that the security and protection of these facilities should be enhanced and intensified. This text by Sen. Baldwin is not a real push for gun control, but the solution that her legislation pursues is certainly not in favour of expanding gun rights, like the other legislative bills, and shows the contrast in solutions between the two opposing camps in the gun debate. Sen. Jerry Moran also delivered the last securitizing text in a short television interview. In this interview, he comments on the introduction of his bill to Congress (Moran, 2015, July 22; see Appendix D., pp. 190-192). There is an indirect use of collective trauma present in form of some metaphors and a singular attempt of identifying with others’ needs. For example,

“(…) we have some of the best-trained, most disciplined individuals and yet the policy is such that they are unable to carry a sidearm to protect themselves, whether it is at a recruitment center or at a military installation otherwise. This just makes sense to me to utilise the ability for self- defense and more than self-defense, defending your colleagues as well.” (Moran, 2015, July 22; see Appendix D., p. 190) In the securitizing discourse, indirect referencing to the Chattanooga shootings emphasizes the vulnerability, because the victims were unable to protect themselves, the ineffectiveness of current policy, and the need for new legislation. The intertextual reference to his own bill and all the other texts by gun rights advocates is obvious and is consistent with the shared argument that military men and women should be allowed to bear guns to protect themselves and their fellow colleagues. 60 |

Concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the fourth unit of analysis and a comparison with the previous units of analysis The absence of securitizing speech acts or interviews by gun control advocates stands out and noticeably affected the discourse of the gun rights advocates. The absence of pro-gun control securitizing moves gave the gun rights proponents no need to respond to the securitization by the opposing side and bring all standard arguments, like the infringements upon Second Amendment rights, into play. The only standard argument that was used is the argument that the best way to protect oneself is carrying a gun, especially in case of well-trained military men and women at military installations. Another explanation for the absence of most arguments at the side of the anti-gun control proponents is that the discourse was relatively specified; aimed at the discussion about gun-free zones. This unit of analysis shows not only a remarkable attempt by gun advocates to expand specific gun rights, but also very divergent legislative proposals from both sides of the debate to the security problem arising from the Chattanooga shootings. Where the gun proponents use the Chattanooga shooting and similar shootings with the function to illustrate the vulnerability of the military personnel, the failing of gun-free zones, and the need for legislative change aimed at allowing guns on military installations, the counterproposal by Sen. Baldwin tries to tackle this security problem by improving security instead of expanding gun rights.

4.1.5 Fifth unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015)

This is the final unit of analysis that revolves around a mass shooting. The two perpetrators of the San Bernardino attack had a terrorist motive and this mass shooting was the deadliest terrorist attack on American soil since the September 11, 2001, attacks. A greater share of references to collective trauma linked to terrorism would be a logical consequence for the securitizing discourses. The texts that are part of this unit of analysis are contributions to the securitization of the gun debate from both gun control and gun rights advocates.

Table 4.5 An overview of the securitizing texts of the fifth unit of analysis Securitizing texts of gun control -Speech by Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) on the Senate floor (Dec. 3, 2015); advocates -Speech by Hillary Clinton (D) at a campaign event in Fort Dodge, IA (Dec. 4, 2015); -Speech by President Obama during his Weekly Presidential Address (Dec. 5, 2015). Securitizing texts of gun/Second -Interview of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) by Breitbart News (Dec. 3, 2015); Amendment rights advocates -Interview of Donald Trump (R) during a campaign rally in Spencer, IA (Dec. 5, 2015).

61 |

The day after the San Bernardino attack, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D) gave a speech on the Senate floor about the shooting in her home state California and used the opportunity to talk about gun reforms. The little time that had passed and her close affiliation with San Bernardino is reflected in the emotions and identifications with the audience in her speech and the wide and varied use of collective trauma in general (U.S. Senate, 2015, December 3; see Appendix E., pp. 193-198). The collective trauma that refers to the San Bernardino attack has the function of remembrance and sympathizing, evoking emotional reactions, uniting and creating a community and calling for urgent action. She uses numbers and figures of (mass) shootings in California, where stricter gun laws apply, to argue that gun control works, but she stresses at the same time that the only way to let it work optimally, is to adopt a nationwide legislation. She thinks it is not normal that these mass shooting happen in America and not in similar industrialized countries. An argument that was also used by President Obama and Sen. Church after the Washington Navy Yard shooting and the Charleston church shooting. The collective trauma of various mass shootings is used for a scare or wake-up call and realization about the widespread and frequent occurrence, the vulnerability of the audience and the frustration in politics and, above all, for a call for action. But, Sen. Boxer makes use of more collective traumas. Just like Hillary Clinton after the shooting in Charleston, Sen. Boxer mentions that persons on the terrorist watch list can get their hands on guns, thereby referring to domestic acts of terrorism. A new collective trauma is brought up by Sen. Boxer when she refers to the Vietnam War:

“After ten years of the Vietnam War, we lost nearly 60,000 Americans, and people were in despair. We lose more than that to gun violence in less than two years in this great nation. If it was anything else that caused the death of 30,000 Americans a year, every single senator would be in their chair, and we would be demanding action and we would be crossing over party lines to stop it, because that, my friends, is an epidemic.” (U.S. Senate, 2015, December 3; see Appendix E., p. 194) In this comparison she emphasizes the absurdity of political inaction, emphasizes the regularity and incredible amount of (mass) shootings and related deaths, and expresses the need for action on gun control. Although the mentioning of the Vietnam trauma adds to the discourse and line of reasoning, the same questions regarding the piling up of multiple collective traumas from the past and the compatibility with the audience, that were asked in the third unit of analysis, can be asked here. Finally, the text refers directly to two other securitizing texts from the first unit of analysis. Sen. Boxer expresses her support for the efforts of Sen. Feinstein and the legislation she initiated on banning assault weapons, i.e. the AWB.

62 |

Sen. Ted Cruz gave an interview where he reacted to the San Bernardino attacks and the acts of securitizing actors on the pro-gun control side. Collective trauma is present in his text by using various references to mass shootings, in specific San Bernardino, and Islamic terrorism in some direct mentions, metaphors, and an attempt to identify with the audience (Hawkins, 2015, December 3; see Appendix E., pp. 206-208). The first part of the interview entails a response to acts of President Obama, Hillary Clinton and others by arguing that they are not doing anything to defeat ‘radical Islamic terrorism’ and other threats, but continuously undermine to Second Amendment rights of US citizens. To support this line of reasoning, collective trauma has the function to show that actions and legislative proposals of gun control advocates are not effective, to portray these gun control liberals as an outgroup that do not take action against terrorists, but against law abiding citizens, and to express a need for other action. This other kind of action is, in the view of Sen. Cruz, not taking away the guns, but using them. The second and last part of the interview refers to the strict gun laws that are in place in California, which were also mentioned by Sen. Boxer. She sees a decrease in gun violence in California, but, unfortunately, also a limitation in the effectiveness of these stricter laws because of the absence of these same laws in neighbouring states. Where Sen. Boxer argues for new national legislation to reach a more effective operation of these laws, Sen. Cruz uses the San Bernardino attack to demonstrate that these same laws are not working and that new, similar proposals are equally ineffective in preventing mass shootings like this. So, it is a text with a strong intertextual element where Sen. Cruz makes use of collective traumas to place a counter discourse against the securitizing discourses of his opponents in the gun debate. Subsequently, on the next day, Hillary Clinton held a short securitizing speech during a campaign event in Fort Dodge, Iowa. The use of collective trauma is present throughout her short contribution and she makes use of several metaphors and a single interaction (Merica, 2015, December 7; see Appendix E., 199-201). Intertextually, this text immediately gives an indirect reaction to the words of Sen. Cruz, who said that President Obama and Hillary Clinton had refused to use the words ‘radical Islamic terrorism’. In contrast, Clinton states, by referring to the mass shooting in San Bernardino, that these acts of ‘jihadi terrorism’ need to be prevented and everyone who wants to become a terrorist needs to be identified. Although she is refusing to use the word ‘Islamic’, she is using both references to mass shootings as well as references to terrorism, that in America always has a link with 9/11, and is not restrained in her language. Her use of these traumas clearly has the function of creating an outgroup of terrorists or potential terrorists. Clinton, additionally, places people that are on the no-fly list in this outgroup. The difference with her previous reference to the 9/11 trauma after the Charleston

63 | shooting is the explicit mentioning of ‘jihadi terrorism’ and the fact that the function of this usage is much more action-oriented. She returns to the issue of gun control by arguing that this outgroup can still get guns and adds a function of creating a sense of urgency and a need for better policy to the collective trauma usage. She also refers to other loopholes that enabled perpetrators from previous mass shootings, like Charleston and Sandy Hook, to buy weapons. The terrorist outgroup is not the only outgroup that is created through the use of collective trauma. Clinton also creates an outgroup of Republican who obstructed a law that prohibited people on the no-fly list from buying a gun from passing Congress. The last securitizing text in this unit of analysis from a gun control advocate was delivered by President Obama. Obama gave in his Weekly Presidential Address a speech that discusses the San Bernardino attack. The discourse is full of collective trauma that specifically refers to San Bernardino and to mass shootings and terrorism in general (The White House, 2015, December 5; see Appendix E., pp. 202-205). All this collective trauma is mainly used in interactions, metaphors and direct mentions and, firstly, has the function of remembering the victims in California, sympathize with the families and adding emotion. Second, the most important function, as is often the case in the securitizing acts of gun control advocates, is expressing the urgent need for new legislation and change. This is supported by some additional functions like scaring the audience by making them aware of potential threats like radicalization and lone wolf terrorists, the lethality of assault weapons, and the ability of people that are dangerous or on the no-fly list to get their hands on guns. To counterbalance this function of scaring, Obama uses collective trauma also to reassure the audience that investigators are doing everything to retrieve all the answers and that the American society is resilient and will uphold its values. Other additional functions of the use of collective trauma that support the need for action are uniting and appealing to the community of Americans and politicians and creating an outgroup of terrorists and potential criminals. Aspects like the mentioning of the no-fly list and a function of collective trauma that creates an outgroup of terrorists, fit in well with the previous discourse of Hillary Clinton. Another aspects that this text of Obama shares with Clinton’s act is the indirect reaction to the accusation of Sen. Ted Cruz that they avoid the use of ‘radical Islamic terrorism’. Like Clinton, Obama is not using ‘Islamic’, but discusses the issue by using various combinations of words like ‘radicalization’, ‘ISIL’, ‘violent ideology’ and ‘terrorism’. Finally, Donald Trump, gun rights advocate, made some remarks to reporters that accompanied him on a campaign rally in Iowa. He not only uses direct mentions to the San Bernardino attack in his discourse, but also a direct mentioning of the November 2015 Paris

64 | attacks (Flores & Atwood, 2015, December 5; see Appendix E., pp. 209-210). The securitizing aim of his short interview is to stress that the victims would have had a better chance if they had guns too and were able to protect themselves. These usage of both events of collective trauma has the function of emphasizing the vulnerability of the audience without guns and scaring them with this insecurity:

“If you look at Paris, they didn’t have guns and they were slaughtered. If you look at what happened in California, they didn’t have guns, they were slaughtered. So, I think it would have a lot better if they had guns in that room, somebody to protect. They could have protected themselves if they had guns.” (Flores & Atwood, 2015, December 5; see Appendix E., p. 209) Furthermore, his particular mentioning of terrorism and Muslim extremism in case of the San Bernardino shooting is creating an outgroup of these groups of people with similar ideas. In contrast to his fellow gun rights advocate, Ted Cruz, Trump does not refer or comment in his interview on speeches or other texts of President Obama, Hillary Clinton or other gun control advocates.

Concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the fifth unit of analysis and a comparison with the previous units of analysis Just as the other units of analysis, that comprise a point of reference in the gun debate right after a mass shooting, remembrance and emotional support were main functions of the use of collective trauma. Also, the action-reaction dynamic between the opposing acts, that was also visible in some of the other units, was clearly present. The element of terrorism in the San Bernardino attack made an interesting addition to the gun debate. Gun control advocates used terrorism in their discourse as an important argument for gun control. Important functions of the use of this collective trauma was to portray these terrorists as an outgroup that has to be dealt with and to emphasize the need for action because these kind of perpetrators are still able to buy weapons. On the other end of the spectrum, gun rights advocates used the San Bernardino attack to express the need for more guns in order to protect oneself and others against terrorists and other dangerous people, instead of taking these guns away from people. This call for more guns as a solution to mass shootings and terrorism was more prominent in their discourse than in the earlier units of analysis. The terrorist nature of this mass shooting creates a more varied use of collective traumas. Naturally, mass shootings is used a lot in the discourse, in specific the shooting in San Bernardino, but also various references to terrorism are often used. Although every reference to terrorism, driven by radical ideologies, by an American politician is an

65 | indirect reference to 9/11, there is no direct mentioning of the September 11 attacks in any of the texts. Conversely, concrete events of terrorism, that are mentioned in the securitizing texts, are, of course, the San Bernardino attack and the November 2015 Paris attacks.

4.1.6 Sixth unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016)

The sixth and last unit of analysis is not using a collective trauma event as its point of reference like the previous four units, but is focusing at statements and ideas relating to future policy regarding gun control. In a year when a new President of the United States is chosen, the issue of gun politics is certainly on the agenda and part of the programs of the various presidential candidates. The beginning of 2016, just before the start of the series of primaries and caucuses, that is the prelude to presidential election time, is, therefore, a suitable moment to take a last snapshot of both sides of the gun debate. The texts that discuss gun rights or Second Amendment rights of the campaign programs of the two most important presidential candidates the Republican camp, Sen. Ted Cruz and Donald Trump, are included. Although it was the intention to also include two of the same kind of texts that discussed the issue of gun control from the two main candidates from the Democratic camp, only a text from the campaign program of Hillary Clinton is part of this unit of analysis, because Bernie Sanders does not discuss the issue of gun control in his program. Furthermore, a securitizing act of President Obama is incorporated. In this speech text Obama discusses the development in gun politics during his Presidency and the road that lies ahead for gun control. The analysis starts with this last text.

Table 4.6 An overview of the securitizing texts of the sixth unit of analysis Securitizing texts of gun control -Speech by President Obama on Executive Actions on Guns at the advocates White House (January 5, 2016); -Vision of Hillary Clinton (D) on the issue of gun violence prevention. Securitizing texts of gun/Second -Vision of Sen. Ted Cruz (R) on the issue of second amendment rights; Amendment rights advocates - Vision of Donald Trump (R) on the issue of second amendment rights. President Obama’s speech was held at the White House on January 5, 2016, and discussed his executive action on guns, his motives and his visions for gun policy that he deemed important, but not necessarily achievable in the remainder of his presidential term (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., pp. 211-222). Many survivors and family members of survivors and victims of mass shootings were present in the room and this is reflected in the use and function of collective trauma. Interactions with these attendees that refer to various mass shootings are used in function of remembrance,

66 | support and evoking some emotions. The function of remembrance, together with an emphasis on the widespread and frequent nature of these events of collective trauma, also emerges when Obama gives a recap and lists a large number of the mass shootings to which he had to react to during his Presidency:

“Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., p. 211) This all contributes to a securitizing text that shows an extensive use of collective trauma in direct mentions, metaphors, emotions, interactions and identification attempts. This use of collective trauma does not only cover mass shootings, but there are also some references to domestic terrorism and racial segregation. This diverse usage serves many functions in the securitizing discourse. Before Obama discusses his executive actions and policy ideas, he reacts to several comments and counterarguments of gun rights advocates. He directly reacts to presidential candidates Trump and Cruz, who stated that background checks will lead to taking away guns of the people, a constitutional right. He emphasizes that the people’s Second Amendment rights are not harmed and reassures the audience that it will not affect their gun rights by using the perpetrators of mass shootings as a concrete example of persons who will have more trouble getting their hands on guns when these checks are installed. In this context, he uses the no-fly list argument, that was also used previous texts, to show vulnerability and the urgency for these measures. By mentioning and explaining the working of these background checks, Obama also directly refers to the efforts of Sen. Manchin and Sen. Toomey and their Manchin-Toomey Amendment. The next arguments he responds to, that have a strong connection with mass shootings, are the often heard comments of gun rights proponents that these background checks have not stopped the last mass shooting and that mental health should be blamed. To this first argument, Obama responds in the following way:

“Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. (Applause.) We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., p. 214) In relation to the mental health-arguments, Obama states that mental health is an important focus of the executive actions, but he illustrates through the use of mass shootings in the discourse that gun rights advocates often overreact when confronted with a mass shooting and

67 | blame mental illness to avoid further gun control. Consequently, the use of collective trauma by Obama in relation to these comments of gun rights advocates also have the function of expressing frustration about their attempts of obstructing new legislation and their false arguments. Subsequently, Obama discusses in his speech text his executive actions, what is happening at this moment in relation to gun control and what is not possible to achieve during his presidential term and why. His answer to this ‘why-question’ is a Republican, anti-gun control blockade in Congress and he, therefore, makes use of collective trauma to appeal to the American people, as he did in his memorial speech at the Washington Navy Yard, to stand up against the gun lobby and these politicians. This is in line with one of the main functions of the use of collective trauma, namely uniting the American people and creating a strong community that will together pursue real policy change in the future. The other main function is creating a sense of urgency about pushing through gun control policy by stating that the current legislation is not sufficient, that this does not happen in peer nations, and that this new normal of mass violence cannot be accepted. These latter two arguments are also heard in his earlier speeches and in speech texts of Sen. Church and Sen. Boxer. At the end of his speech, Obama calls upon every American that, although the Second Amendment rights are important, there are other constitutional rights that need to be taken into account and that are constantly violated in mass shootings:

“Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them. Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. (Applause.) And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. (Applause.) They had rights, too. (Applause.) Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.” (The White House, Office of the Press Secretary, 2016, January 5; see Appendix F., p. 216) In the campaign program text of Hillary Clinton, where she discusses gun violence and measures, she talks about her proven record in gun politics, what needs to be done, how and why (Clinton, 2016; see Appendix F., 223-226). Within this securitizing act, she uses direct mentions and metaphors of mass shootings and terrorism to, firstly, show what she has done for gun control. Her use of directly mentioning certain collective traumas, such as the Columbine High School massacre, helps to illustrate Clinton’s response after every mass

68 | shooting. Second, with regard to what needs to be done, how and why, collective trauma has the function of emphasizing the current vulnerability of the system with all its loopholes, the ineffectiveness of legislation and the need for legislative change. Collective trauma is mentioned in the discourse to tell the audience what needs to be done, why and how to prevent a next Virginia Tech, a next Charleston or a next Sandy Hook. Intertextually, the program text gives a direct link to a text of former Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, survivor of the 2011 Tucson shooting, in which she explains why she supports Hillary Clinton. Overall, Clinton’s campaign program on the issue of gun control is an securitizing, action-oriented text that shows a usage of mass shootings and terrorism in general and in specific. As a gun advocate, Ted Cruz is not approaching the gun debate in his campaign program as an issue of gun violence, but as an issue of protecting American Second Amendment rights (Cruz, 2016; see Appendix F., 227-229). Unsurprisingly, the securitizing text of Sen. Cruz does not contain any reference to a mass shooting as collective trauma. There is one metaphor that refers to collective trauma. This metaphor mentions radical Islamic terrorism on American soil and this is an indirect reference to the September 11 attacks. In his discourse, this use of collective trauma serves to emphasize the need to upheld Second Amendment rights, so people can protect themselves, their family and their home. The use of collective trauma remains limited to this single occasion. Cruz’ program text clearly states his record of advocating Second Amendment rights, but is not proposing any policy measures. The only action-oriented idea and at the same time a reference to the actions of gun control proponents, is to keep fighting against measures that are aimed at taking guns away from law abiding citizens. The text of Trump’s campaign program shares with Ted Cruz the similarity that it is strong appeal for upholding Second Amendment rights, but the text contains also some significant differences (Trump, 2016; see Appendix F., 230-234). The text has a greater presence of collective trauma in the discourse and it introduces concrete policy measures through the use of various metaphors. There is no mentioning of any proven record by Donald Trump on the subject of protecting Second Amendment rights. In his text, Trump uses the collective trauma of mass shootings to make a couple of arguments and statements that were visible throughout the case in securitizing texts of other gun rights advocates and in other texts Trump himself. First, Trump calls for more attention to violent criminals and mental health. By using collective trauma, he states that law abiding citizens are getting the blame for mass shootings, while these violent criminals and mentally ill people are the real problem. This particular use of collective trauma has the function of emphasizing the urgency to tackle this problem to protect the Second Amendment rights, showing that Second Amendment rights are

69 | damaged, creating an outgroup of violent and mentally instable people, and emphasizing that gun control proponents are overreacting. Second, Trump accuses the gun control advocates of exploiting the collective traumas of mass shootings to push for their gun control measures that would not even have prevented these tragedies. Here, the function in the discourse is to show that proposed legislation is not effective and to isolate the pro-gun control politicians and condemn their actions as overreaction. Finally, Donald Trump addresses the inability of well- trained military men and women at military installations to defend themselves without a firearm when a perpetrator threatens their lives. This indirect reference to mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard and Chattanooga serves the function of pointing at the ineffectiveness of current legislation, creating a sense of urgency to change policy, and emphasizing the vulnerability of the American forces.

Concluding analysis of the use and function of collective trauma in the sixth unit of analysis All four securitizing texts give a relatively complete overview of the main arguments and the most important functions of collective trauma usage throughout this gun debate case. The speech text by President Obama discusses the various mass shootings and the development of gun control during his Administration and gives a recap of the debate. The collective trauma in his discourse has the function to remember the tragedies and victims, to respond to the arguments of gun rights advocates and to share his vision for the future of gun politics. In a discourse filled with direct and indirect references to collective traumas, he does a ‘final’ appeal to the American community to unite and come into action. What stands out is that he is the first actor, in all units of analysis, that uses collective trauma to argue that the right to keep and bear arms is not the only constitutional right that is of importance to the gun debate. The campaign programs, although the language is more formal, contain arguments and references that have been used by these securitizing actors throughout the case. In general, both Cruz and Clinton emphasize their proven records, while Trump and Clinton too are focusing on what needs to be done, why and how to protect Second Amendment rights or to achieve better gun policy.

70 |

CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION

The idea of this research is to take the concept of collective trauma as a starting point to offer a new perspective to securitization’s facilitating conditions of context and audience and the case of the American gun debate. It is about understanding the role of collective trauma in the securitizing actors’ efforts in the gun debate to construct shared understandings vis-à-vis the securitizing issue and aim and communicate at the same level of the audience in terms of experience. An analysis of the case, that comprised six points of reference in a defined period of the American gun debate, led to an answer to the following research question: ‘How and to what extent is collective trauma used and what is its function in the discourse of securitizing acts by political actors in the case of the American gun debate in the period between the introduction of the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 and the presidential election race until early 2016?’. The conclusion presents this answer to this research question and reflects on the research and body of knowledge. Subsequently, this chapter contains a discussion of various insights, shortcomings, strengths, and recommendations.

5.1 Conclusion

5.1.1 Answering the research question

In general, the securitizing texts show a significant use of collective trauma in the discourse. The more official texts, like legislative bills and campaign programs, are somewhat more restrained in their use, but in most of the texts the use is substantial and varied. The use of collective trauma refers mostly to mass shootings, both to the phenomenon in general and to specific cases such as the mass shootings that were also a point of reference in the case design, but also refers in some instances to (radical Islamic/jihadi) terrorism on American soil, racial segregation and slavery. A couple of other collective traumas are mentioned only once or twice in the discourse, these are the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., the Vietnam War and the November 2015 Paris attacks. With regard to the discursive use of collective trauma, the analysis has shown that direct mentions make up a large share of the uses of collective trauma and are often used in combination with direct references to recent mass shootings. Also, metaphors and emotions are often used to refer to a collective trauma, whereas analogies and

71 | stereotypes are used just occasionally. Finally, the frequent use of interactions and attempts to identify with feelings or needs of the audience shows that the securitizing actors are well aware of their audience and make some real efforts to appeal to the audience or communicate at the same level. On various occasions a specific audience community is addressed by a securitizing actor, for instance the nation as a whole, gun owners, parents or a specific community of victims and their relatives. Just like all of the other uses of collective trauma, these appeals to specific communities within the audience are used to serve the securitizing act in one way or another and, therefore, have their functions in the discourse. What the case of the gun debate has taught is that the functions of collective trauma are, most of the times, directly linked to the securitizing practice of making statements, formulating arguments, and calling or appealing for action. The direct links with the discourse serve to create shared understandings with the audience about securitizing issues and aims and support their securitizing practice. To illustrate what the analysis has made clear about what role the functions of collective trauma usage have in the securitizing moves of both sides, the main points in the discourse, like arguments, statements, etc., that make use of collective trauma are included in this conclusion. First, some key points in the discourse of the gun control advocates are stressing the importance and urgency of new gun control policy. This is done in various ways. They state, often in texts during the aftermath of mass shootings, that in remembrance of the victims and out of respect for their families, people should come together and pursue changes in gun control. Also, mass shootings are listed to emphasize the widespread and frequent occurrence of these tragedies and the vulnerability of the audience to make clear how urgent the need is for action. This is sometimes combined with the expression of fear that these mass shootings are the sign of a new normal of mass violence. Furthermore, multiple times a comparison is drawn with other advanced nations to emphasize the abnormality of the phenomenon of mass shootings, happening on this scale, and to show that Americans are not inherently more violent people, but that there is just a divergence in gun policy. Likewise, gun control proponents show how easy it is for dangerous people to buy guns by pointing at the perpetrators of several mass shootings, who were mentally ill or on the terrorist watch list and still could buy a weapon, and by recalling loopholes in gun legislation, like the Charleston loophole, that were direct causes for mass shooting tragedies. Second, other key points of the pro-gun control politicians aim more at responding to securitizing acts of gun rights advocates and refuting some of their statements. They react to many of their statements directly and, generally, call their line of reasoning weak and argue that

72 | it lacks plausible arguments. In response to statements that an implementation of their gun reform proposals could not have stopped the latest mass shooting and accusations of misusing tragedies for a push for policy, gun control proponents affirm that not every tragedy can be prevented, but that this is no reason to quit trying to prevent them and that even saving only one life should be enough motivation for implementation in name of all the victims. Moreover, they use the words of survivors and families of victims of mass shootings and the attendance of these experts by experience to refute the accusation of misuse. In addition, they argue that gun control does work by mentioning facts and figures of states like California, where the amount of gun deaths and mass shootings has declined since the introduction of this regulation, but stress the need of centralized, nationwide legislation for maximum effectiveness. Another accusation the gun control proponents respond to is the alleged violation of Second Amendment rights that gun policy reform will bring. They try to reassure the audience that this is not the case and stress that the debate is not about taking away these constitutional rights, but about preventing mass shootings and other gun violence and preventing guns from falling into the hands of potential perpetrators. The last response to their opponents in the gun debate is to create an outgroup of pro-gun politicians and the gun lobby and to make an appeal to Americans to stand up against them and not accept their actions. This appeal highlights the money- and power-driven motivations behind the obstruction to new gun legislation by gun rights proponents and emphasizes that their efforts enable the perpetrators of mass shootings to commit their violent acts. The main points in the discourse of gun rights and Second Amendment rights proponents, that make use of the functions of collective trauma, are concerned with upholding these rights, disputing the effectiveness of gun control, pointing at a different problem definition that causes mass shootings and portraying the pro-gun control opponents in a bad way. A first argument they use is that gun control is not targeting the perpetrators of mass shootings, but targets law abiding citizens by infringing upon the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The gun advocates argue that these rights are crucial for the protection of American citizens and their families against these violent criminals. Because, the pro-gun control politicians come after their rights, the law abiding citizens get the blame of mass shootings, whereas the real problem are violent criminals and mentally ill people. This reasoning also relates to the next statements where they often create an outgroup of the sick and deranged offenders of mass shootings and define their criminal records and mental health as the real problem that needs to be tackled to address mass shootings. Additionally, the gun proponents use mass shootings that happen in a state with stricter gun legislation, like the San Bernardino

73 | shooting in California, to show that gun control does not work. Similarly, shootings at military installations, like the Washington Navy Yard shooting and the 2015 Chattanooga shootings, are used to illustrate the vulnerability of military personnel and the danger and ineffectiveness of gun-free zones at these installations. Finally, some of their statements are aimed at singling out the gun control proponents to discredit them. These include accusations of misuse of mass shootings and related victims for their own advantage by using them to pursue their policy preferences and accusations that they try to divide people and taking away their rights, instead of fighting crime and mental illness.

5.1.2 Reflections

The discussion in the body of knowledge about the history of gun control has shown that collective trauma, like assassinations and mass shootings, can be an inspiration for gun law reform. Despite the lack of real success in recent years in terms of policy change, the case in this research has analysed how these pushes for particular securitizing aims and their relation with the use and function of collective trauma work in practice. Many of the findings of this research correspond with the academic literature about the American gun debate. It became very clear that there are two sides in the debate that are very far apart from each other. The gun control advocates and their opponents are acting in repeating patterns in a debate that has a very strong action-reaction dynamic. The analysis in this research has shown that the use and function of collective trauma in the discourse match with certain aspects of the cultural worldviews of the securitizing actors. Gun rights advocates stress the importance of individual self-reliance and self-defence by arguing that citizens need their Second Amendments rights to protect themselves during mass shootings and other acts of violence. Gun control proponents emphasize the need for collective action to tackle the phenomenon of mass shootings. In addition, they use the collective traumas of slavery, racial segregation, and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr. in their acts. The use of these traumas fits in well with the origins of the gun control advocates’ cultural style, in which the refusal to accept and comply with racism and with the gun as symbol of white male domination is a very important historical motivation. What also becomes apparent out of the analysis is that one mass shooting can lead to totally diverging securitizing discourses with widely varying uses and functions of this collective trauma. In their construction of a shared understanding with the securitizing object, i.e. the audience, the securitizing actors on both sides define a very different securitizing subject, i.e. the issue presented as existential threat, in relation to the American gun debate.

74 |

Where the pro-gun control politicians define the guns that are in the possession of or can easily fall into the hands of potential groups of perpetrators of violent acts, like mass shootings, as the securitizing subject, the anti-gun control politicians define the violent and deranged (potential) perpetrators, the lack of mental health care, and the innocent, law-abiding citizens who are left helpless without guns and cannot protect themselves against these perpetrators as securitizing subjects. The use of collective trauma in these analysed acts of securitization is substantial and its function is important for the discourse. The case has shown that the securitizing actors’ use of collective traumas has not remained limited to recent mass shootings. Actors from both sides have used on multiple occasions additional collective traumas from the past in their discourse, like slavery, racial segregation, assassinations, the Vietnam War, and terrorist attacks. Although the actors made sure that the uses and functions of these traumas added to their discourse, it is debatable if this piling of collective traumas has in the end a positive effect on the success of the act. Research on this effect would be necessary to draw any conclusions, but it is possible that the adding of various collective traumas from the past to the discourse would lead to an overkill. Then, collective traumas become just simple rhetorical tools and become less compelling and convincing. Another comment about the usage of multiple collective traumas in one discourse is that these probably do not always appeal to the same audience, because the audience that an actor reaches by using references to slavery is different from when he makes a reference to 9/11. The composition of the ‘collective’ in collective trauma is not always the same and ‘collective’ does not always mean that it is shared by everyone. It is, of course, possible that the securitizing actors are aware of this and believe that the use of various collective traumas that appeal to different audiences is not creating confusion and is not detrimental to the effect of their securitizing act. But, also here, a study into these effects is necessary to come to a conclusive answer. A final point about the effect of the usage of collective traumas is whether a certain collective trauma, for instance the most recent mass shooting, that is used because it has happened recently, because emotions are still fresh, and because it captures the imagination, is still used in a similar discourse and has still the same effect on the audience in ten years. Collective memory literature tells that the collective memory is not static and adapts to a certain extent to present circumstances. So, the answer to the question if a certain collective trauma is still relevant and has the same meaning in the collective memory in ten years’ time, is dependent upon the status and context of the community at that time. But, what can be said is that recency

75 | is for some collective traumas in the discourse, with regard to their effectiveness, a more important aspect than for other, more timeless traumas. In conclusion, it is important to reflect on the link between the use and function of collective trauma and securitization theory and what this study has added. One of the three elements of standard successful securitization, formulated by the Copenhagen School, is that the audience accepts the securitizing act with corresponding issues and aims. To convince this audience, Balzacq (2005) states, the securitizing actor has to tune the discourse of his act to their experience (p.184). The use and function of collective trauma in the securitizing moves of politicians show that collective trauma has a role in how these securitizing actors think that they should convince their audience and appeal to their experience. With the addition of collective traumas to their discourse, the securitizing actors indicate that they believe, to a certain extent, that this is helping the success of their securitizing act. So, although the context and other facilitating conditions need to be studied further in future research, this study has shown the intention of the use and function of collective trauma in securitizing acts in a little more detail.

5.2 Discussion

5.2.1 Insights and practical recommendations

What has become clear is that the use and function of collective trauma in the securitizing acts of the gun debate is substantial and relevant and that collective trauma plays a role in the attempts of securitizing actors to convince their audience. The combination of the use and function in securitizing practice and the link of collective trauma with context and audience, both facilitating conditions of securitization, makes collective trauma an element to be reckoned with for both practitioners and audience. Anticipation is key for both of these groups. The practitioners, including the politicians that are engaged in the gun debate, should use the increased awareness and improved understanding of the role of collective trauma to improve their preparation and performance in securitizing acts. Because of some recurring patterns in the use and function of collective trauma, often in combination with some well- known arguments or statements in the discourse, securitizing reactions after a certain traumatic event or the usage of particular collective trauma from the collective memory can be predicted to a certain extent. This knowledge should be used by practitioners to anticipate, to improve their securitizing practice and to come up with a surprising, innovative securitizing moves.

76 |

On the other hand, knowing that a debate and its collection of opposing securitizing texts is caught in a vicious cycle of exchanging repetitive and familiar patterns of using collective trauma events and its functions in predictable and recurring arguments, like this research has shown in the gun debate, should be a motivation for at least one party to end this unconstructive cycle and start a real dialogue with the opposing party. Because, no matter how morally right a politician thinks he and his fellow advocates are and no matter how morally wrong he thinks the opposing party is, when part of their discourse after each mass shooting is to portray the counterparty as malicious and create an outgroup out of them, then there no longer is a debate that uses the potential functions of collective trauma to get somewhere. Then, both sides are equally unconstructive and created an unworkable situation. In this case, the party that wants to alter the status quo, the gun control politicians, should come to the conclusion that securitization has failed and an approach away from public attention is perhaps the better choice, because that could also relieve some of the pressure from gun lobby and upcoming elections. A good starting point would be a rapprochement regarding the definition of the securitizing issue, because a mutual understanding of the problem definition is necessary to have a constructive discussion about solutions and effects. But, as was visible in the analysis, attempts by gun control advocates to come closer to their opponents by acknowledging the importance of better mental health care and trying to reassure citizens that gun control will not affect their Second Amendment rights, two important parts of the securitizing issue of gun proponents, have not been welcomed and answered by the opposing side. From the audience perspective, the gained knowledge about the use and function of collective trauma in securitization of the gun debate can be used to influence the debate. It is important for the audience to understand that, irrespective of their official ability to mandate securitizing actors, it is largely their collective trauma to which the actors in the debate are appealing to. Moreover, this study has shown the clear intentions of the securitizing actors who deploy collective traumas in their discourses to convince the public that their understanding of the securitizing issue is the right one. The securitizing actors need their support for a reason, so the role of the audience should not be underestimated. The audience could try to enforce a more constructive path or a more innovative debate by making clear that they no longer accept a repetition of the same key points or by taking a more active role in the debate themselves. When an audience cares about its collective traumas and some of the securitizing aims, these options for action are worth the effort, because elections, an official ability to mandate politicians, give no guarantees for a better outcome.

77 |

5.2.2 Strengths, limitations and recommendations for further research

Looking back at the research design and analysis, this study has its limitations. One important limitation is the relatively small case that is analysed in this research, in terms of time frame, actors and a strictly defined debate. This limited case prevents this research from making more comprehensive efforts of theorizing about the role of collective trauma in the construction of shared understandings about issue and aim between securitizing actor and audience. Furthermore, the fact that this is a case that is closely affiliated with collective trauma, because the case design is structured around several mass shootings, could have had a significant influence on the usage and function of collective trauma in the securitizing texts. Therefore, the specificity of the case, in addition to its relatively small size, does not allow for any broader, conclusive generalisations and theorization. It is also important to note, within this discussion of limitations, that this research did not study the outcome, reception, effectiveness or success of the securitizing acts, so it cannot draw any conclusions about any possible effect of the use and function of collective trauma on the securitizing practice. Other limitations arise from the data gathering method and the chosen methodology. As already mentioned in the research design, the method of data gathering comes down to the judgement of the researcher. Picking the right texts, ensuring a good balance of the included securitizing actors, ensuring a triangulation of text types, and stopping the collection of data at the right time when the intellectual gain of an extra text is dropping or almost zero, are all judgement calls that need to be made by the researcher in the process of data gathering. So, within the process of data collection lies the danger of not achieving an optimal collection of data and weakening the analysis. Also, because of the nature of the qualitative discourse analysis, the application of this analysis on the case design has the inherent weakness that it is to a certain extent always dependent upon the interpretation of the researcher. Even with the utmost caution, there is no guarantee that a bias, misinterpretation or misjudgement can be totally excluded from the discourse analysis. In addition, the qualitative discourse analysis leads to a very detailed and case-specific research that does not enable this study to include many generalisations in the conclusions and make a step in the development towards a theoretical addition to the facilitating conditions of the securitization framework. But, at the same time this qualitative discourse analysis, together with the historiographic approach, is also one of the strengths of this research. This methodology and approach allow for a specified and in-depth scrutiny of a relatively limited case and a detailed reconstruction of the securitizing practice in this debate. The merits of this presumed strength became visible when at a later stage in the

78 | analysis some patterns with regard to the use and function of collective trauma in the securitizing texts, began to repeat themselves and the intellectual marginal gain of the last texts and unit of analysis dropped significantly. Thereby, also acting as a confirmation of an accurate application of the discourse analysis. An important suggestion for future research is to approach the study of use and function of collective trauma in the discourse not only from the side of the securitizing actors, but also from the side of the audience. This makes it possible to analyse the reception and success of the securitizing acts and to make a more comprehensive effort of theorization about the role of collective trauma in the securitizing practice and its level of success. Also, comparative research would be suitable in this respect. Another suggestion is to enlarge the case design or extend future research to another place, time, securitizing discourse and debate. In other words, a focus in future research on the phenomenon of collective trauma usage and function in different contexts of securitization, vis-à-vis different audiences, in combination with other actors, issues or aims. A structural expansion of the research of collective trauma as an aspect of facilitating conditions to securitization, can lead to useful theorization and the development of a valuable addition to the framework of securitization. Finally, some specific aspects of collective trauma usage in securitizing acts, that have been noticed during this research and have been discussed in the conclusion, allow for interesting future research. These are the effect of piling up collective traumas in a single securitizing text on the success of securitization, the effect of using multiple collective traumas that are compatible with different audiences to the outcome of securitization, and the aspect of recency and whether there is an expiration date for the use of certain collective traumas in relation to their effect on the success of securitization.

79 |

REFERENCES

Alexander, J.C. (2004). Toward a Theory of Cultural Trauma. In Alexander, J.C., Eyerman, R., Giesen, B, Smelser, N.J., & Sztompka, P (Eds.), Cultural Trauma and Collective Identity (pp. 1-30). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Assmann, J. (1995). Collective Memory and Cultural Identity. New German Critique, 65, 125- 133. Balzacq, T. (2011a). A theory of securitization: Origins, core assumptions, and variants. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization Theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 1- 30). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Balzacq, T. (2011b). Enquiries into methods: a new framework for securitization analysis. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization Theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 31-55). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. Balzacq, T. (2005). The Three Faces of Securitization: Political Agency, Audience and Context. European Journal of International Relations, 11(2), 171-201. Bigo, D. (2002). Security and Immigration: Towards a Critique of the Governmentality of Unease. Alternatives, 27, 63-92. Bohleber, W. (2007). Remembrance, trauma and collective memory: The battle for memory in psychoanalysis. The International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 88(2), 329-352. Braman, D., & Kahan, D.M. (2006). Overcoming the Fear of Guns, the Fear of Gun Control, and the Fear of Cultural Politics: Constructing a Better Gun Debate. Emory Law Journal, 55(4), 569-607. Brewin, C.R., Dalgleish, T., & Joseph, S. (1996). A Dual Representation Theory of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder. Psychological Review, 103(4), 670-686. Buzan, B., Wæver, O., & De Wilde, J. (1998). Security: A New Framework for Analysis. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers. Carlson, J.D. (2012). ‘I Don’t Call 911’: American Gun Politics and the Problem of Policing. British Journal of Criminology, 52(6), 1113-1132. Chemerinsky, E. (2004). Putting the Gun Control Debate in Social Perspective. Fordham Law Review, 73(2), 477-485.

80 |

Collier, C.W. (2014). The Death of Gun Control: An American Tragedy. Critical Inquiry, 41(1), 102-131. Cooper, A.C. (2015). Fully Loaded: An Alternative View of the Gun Control Debate. Albany Government Law Review, 8(1), 337-380. Cornell, S., & DeDino, N. (2004). A Well Regulated Right: The Early American Origins of Gun Control. Fordham Law Review, 73(2), 487-528. De Haan, I. (1998). The construction of a national trauma: the memory of the persecution of the Jews in the Netherlands. The Netherlands’ Journal of Social Sciences, 34(2), 196-217. Diaz, T. (2012). Understanding the Smith & Wesson M&P15 Semiautomatic Assault Rifle Used in the Aurora, Colorado Mass Murder. Washington, DC: Violence Policy Center. Edkins, J. Forget Trauma?: Responses to September 11. International Relations, 16(2), 24-256. Goss, K.A. (2004). Policy, Politics, and Paradox: The Institutional Origins of the Great American Gun War. Fordham Law Review, 73(2), 681-714. Halbwachs, M. (1992). On collective memory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Hansen, L. (2000). The Little Mermaid’s Silent Security Dilemma and the Absence of Gender in the Copenhagen School. Millennium, 29(2), 289-306. Hansen, L. (2007). The Clash of Cartoons? The Clash of Civilizations?: Visual Securitization and the Danish 2006 Cartoon Crisis. Paper presented at the International Studies Association Conference, Chicago, 28 February-3 March. Hogan, J.M., & Rood, C. (2015). Rhetorical Studies and the Gun Debate: A Public Policy Perspective. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 18(2), 359-372. Janoff-Bulman, R., & Sheikh, S. (2006). From National Trauma to Moralizing Nation. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 28(4), 325-332. Kahan, D.M. (1999). The Secret Ambition of Deterrence. Harvard Law Review, 113(2), 413- 500. Kansteiner, W. (2002). Finding Meaning in Memory: A Methodological Critique of Collective Memory Studies. History and Theory, 41(2), 179-197. Kleck, G. (1996). Crime, Culture Conflict and the Sources of Support for Gun Control: A Multilevel Application of the General Social Surveys. American Behavioral Scientist, 39(4), 387-404. Léonard, S., & Kaunert, C. (2011). Reconceptualizing the audience in securitization theory. In T. Balzacq (Ed.), Securitization Theory: How security problems emerge and dissolve (pp. 57-76). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.

81 |

McDonald, M. (2008). Securitization and the Construction of Security. European Journal of International Relations, 14(4), 563-587. Möller, F. (2007). Photographic Interventions in Post-9/11 Security Policy. Security Dialogue, 38(2), 179-196. Neal, A.G. (2005). National Trauma and Collective Memory: Extraordinary Events in the American Experience (2nd ed.). Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe. Olick, J.K. (1999a). Genre Memories and Memory Genres: A Dialogical Analysis of May 8, 1945 Commemorations in the Federal Republic of Germany. American Sociological Review, 64(3), 381-402. Olick, J.K. (1999b). Collective Memories: The Two Cultures. Sociological Theory, 17(3), 333- 348. Plotkin-Amrani, G., & Brunner, J. (2015). Making up ‘national trauma’ in Israel: From collective identity to collective vulnerability. Social Studies of Science, 45(4), 525-545. Raviv, A., Sadeh, A, Raviv, A, Silberstein, O, & Diver, O. (2000). Young Israelis’ Reactions to National Trauma: The Rabin Assassination and Terror Attacks. Political Psychology, 21(2), 299-322. Saito, H. (2006). Reiterated Commemoration: Hiroshima as National Trauma. Sociological Theory, 24(4), 353-376. Salter, M.B. (2008). Securitization and desecuritization: a dramaturgical analysis of the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. Journal of International Relation and Development, 11(4), 321-349. Schwartz, B. (1982). The Social Context of Commemoration: A Study in Collective Memory. Social Forces, 61(2), 374-402. Searle, J.R. (1976). A Classification of Illocutionary Acts. Language in Society, 5(1), 1-23. Suedfeld, P. (1997). Reactions to Societal Trauma: Distress and/or Eustress. Political Psychology, 18(4), 849-861. Vertzberger, Y.Y.I. (1997). The Antinomies of Collective Political Trauma: A Pre-Theory. Political Psychology, 18(4), 863-876. Vultee, F. (2010). Securitization: A new approach to the framing of the “war on terror”. Journalism Practice, 4(1), 33-47. Wæver, O. (1995). Securitization and Desecuritization. In R.D. Lipschutz (Ed.), On Security (pp. 46-86). New York: Columbia University Press. Wilkinson, C. (2007). The Copenhagen School on Tour in Kyrgyzstan. Security Dialogue, 38(1), 5-25.

82 |

Williams, M.C. (2003). Words, Images, Enemies: Securitization and International Politics. International Studies Quarterly, 47, 511-531. Witztum, E., & Malkinson, R. (1998). Death of a Leader: Social Construction of Bereavement. In Zinner, E., & Williams, M.B. (Eds.), When a community weeps: Case studies in group survivorship (pp. 119-137). Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.

Legal sources 159 Cong. Rec. S2613-2618 (daily ed. Apr. 11, 2013) (S. Amdt.715 to S.649, 113th Congress). A bill to safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces military installations by repealing bans on military personnel carrying firearms, and for other purposes, S.1823, 114th Congress (2015). Armed Forces Self-Defense Act, S.1821, 114th Congress. (2015). Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, S.150, 113th Congress. (2013). Department of Defense. (1992, February 25). Department of Defense Directive 5210.56: Use of Deadly Force and the Carrying of Firearms by DoD Personnel Engaged in Law Enforcement or Security Duties. Department of Defense. Retrieved April 24, 2016, from http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a272176.pdf. Military Facilities Force Protection Act of 2015, S.1835, 114th Congress. (2015). Military Police. (1993, March 12). Army Regulation 190-14: Carrying of Firearms and Use of Force for Law Enforcement and Security Duties. Washington, DC: Headquarters, Department of the Army. Servicemembers Self-Defense Act of 2015, S.1839, 114th Congres. (2015).

Other sources ABC News. (2015, June 20). In Charleston’s Wake, Hillary Clinton Vows to Fight for Gun Control. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/charlestons-wake-hillary- clinton-vows-fight-gun-control-31914267. Apuzzo, M. (2015, July 22). Dylann Roof, Charleston Shooting Suspect, Is Indicted on Federal Hate Crime Charges. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/23/us/dylann-roof-charleston-shooting-suspect-is- expected-to-face-federal-hate-crime-charges.html?_r=0. Boehlert, E. (2013, September 17). The Growing Myth Of Mass Shootings And “Gun-Free Zones”: Clinton Didn’t “Ban” Guns On Military Bases. Media Matters for America.

83 |

Retrieved from http://mediamatters.org/blog/2013/09/17/the-growing-myth-of-mass- shootings-and-gun-free/195927. Caffeinated Thoughts. (2015, June 20). Ted Cruz Discusses Charleston Shooting. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG9qXqZrCX0. Clinton, H. (2016). Gun violence prevention: It is past time we act on gun violence. Retrieved from https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/. Cowan, L. (2012, December 16). 1989 Calif. school shooting led to assault weapons ban. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/1989-calif-school-shooting-led-to- assault-weapons-ban/. Cruz, T. (2016). Second Amendment Rights: Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Americans. Retrieved from https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/second-amendment-rights/. Feinstein, D. (n.d.) Assault Weapons Ban 0f 2013. Retrieved from the Dianne Feinstein, United States Senator for California website: http://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/assault-weapons-ban-summary. Flores, R., and Atwood, K. (2015, December 5). Trump: San Bernardino victims “could’ve protected themselves if they had guns”. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-san-bernardino-victims-couldve-protected- themselves-if-they-had-guns/. Gun Violence: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, 113th Congress. (2013) (Testimony of Ted Cruz). Hawkins, A. (2015, December 3). Exclusive – Ted Cruz Reacts To San Bernardino: Now, More Than Ever, Americans Must Be Armed. Breitbart. Retrieved from http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/12/03/exclusive-ted-cruz-reacts- san-bernardino-now-ever-americans-must-armed/. Jackson, D., and Kennedy, K. (2013, September 22). Obama calls for ‘transformation’ of nation’s gun laws. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/22/navy-shooting-spree-memorial- service-obama/2849165/. Merica, D. (2015, December 7). Clinton defends pushing gun control amid San Bernardino terror probe. CNN Politics. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/hillary-clinton-guns-terror/. Moran, J. (2015, July 22). Sen. Moran Discusses Legislation to Safeguard Service Members’ 2nd Amendment Rights. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdkTkf4zrm8.

84 |

Morning Joe. (2015, July 17). Donald Trump calls into Morning Joe. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump--i-cant-go-after-lawrence-after-his- apology-486164035508. Newtown Action Alliance. (2013, September 18). Gun Violence (Statement of Rep. Nancy Pelosi). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?315091-1/gun-violence. Newtown Action Alliance. (2013, September 18). Gun Violence (Statement of Sen. Richard Blumenthal). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?315091-1/gun-violence. Roth, S. (2015, June 21). Ted Cruz Cracks Jokes On Gun Control Days After Charleston Shooting. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/20/ted-cruz-gun-control- charleston_n_7628960.html. Slack, M. (2013, September 23). President Obama on the Navy Yard Shooting: “We Can’t Accept This”. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/23/president- obama-memorial-service-victims-navy-yard-shooting-we-can-t-accept. The White House. (2013, April 17). President Obama Speaks on Common-Sense Measures to Reduce Gun Violence. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos-and- video/video/2013/04/17/president-obama-speaks-common-sense-measures-reduce-gun- violence#transcript. The White House. (2015, December 5). Weekly Presidential Address. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?401681-1/weekly-presidential-address. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2016, January 5). Remarks by the President on Common-Sense Gun Safety Reform. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the- press-office/2016/01/05/remarks-president-common-sense-gun-safety-reform. The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2015, June 18). Statement by the President on the Shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/18/statement-president-shooting- charleston-south-carolina. Trump, D.J. (2016). Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again. Retrieved from https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second-amendment- rights. U.S. Capitol. (2013, January 24). Assault Weapons Ban Bill (Statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?310581-1/assault-weapons- ban-bill&start=444.

85 |

U.S. Senate. (2015, December 3). Senator Barbara Boxer on the San Bernardino, California, Shootings. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?401545-3/senator-barbara- boxer-san-bernardino-california-shootings. U.S. Senate. (2015, June 24). Senator Christopher Church on Gun Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?326775-5/senator-christopher-murphy-dct-gun- legislation. U.S. Senate (2013, September 17). Senator Dick Durbin on Navy Yard Shooting. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?315064-7/senate-dick-durbin-navy-yard-shooting. U.S. Senate. (2013, April 10). Senator Lee on Filibustering Gun Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?312017-7/senator-lee-filibustering-gun-legislation. Vasilogambros, M. (2016, April 14). Sandy Hook Lawsuit Moves Forward. The Atlantic. Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2016/04/sandy-hook-guns- lawsuit/478314/.

86 |

APPENDIX

A. Texts of the first unit of analysis: Period around the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment (April 11, 2013)

Unit of analysis: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) Securitizing actor: Sen. Diane Feinstein (D), gun control advocate Date: March 14, 2013 Type of act: Bill S.150 AWB 2013 (introduced to Senate on January 24, 2013; reported to Senate on March 14, 2013) Location/means of communication: Senate Source: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013, S.150, 113th Congress. (2013).

N.B. Because of the length, only the relevant parts of Bill S.150 are included or paraphrased.

SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

Section 2 of the Bill contains an extensive list of various definitions of characteristics, types and brands of weapons that are subject to the ban and were used or similar to the weapons used in mass shootings, e.g. the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle that was used during the 2012 Aurora shooting or the Bushmaster XM15 that was used during the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting.

SEC. 7. STUDY BY NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF JUSTICE ON MASS SHOOTINGS.

(a) IN GENERAL.—

(1) STUDY.—Not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall instruct the Director of the National Institutes of Justice to conduct a peer-reviewed factual study of incidents of mass shootings in the United States. Any studies, research, data, or testimony the Director considers must be peer- reviewed, scientifically and methodologically sound, and otherwise bear the indicia of the highest degree of reliability within the relevant field of expertise.

(2) REPORT.—Not later than 1 year after the date on which the study required under paragraph (1) begins, the Director shall submit to Congress a report detailing the findings of the study.

(b) ISSUES EXAMINED.—In conducting the study under subsection (a)(1), the Director shall examine the impact, if any, upon perpetrators of mass shooting of each of the following: 87 |

(1) Childhood abuse or neglect.

(2) Exposure to criminal acts, including gang violence.

(3) Exposure to bullying.

(4) Mental illness.

(5) The effectiveness of, and resources available for, the mental health system in understanding, detecting, and countering tendencies toward violence.

(6) The availability of mental health and other resources and strategies to help families detect and counter tendencies toward violence.

(7) Familial relationships, including the level of involvement and awareness of parents in the lives of their children.

(8) School supportiveness, including the level of involvement and awareness of teachers and school administrators in the lives of their students, and the availability of mental health and other resources at schools to help detect and counter tendencies of students toward violence.

(9) School performance, academic success and persistence.

(10) The nature and impact of the alienation of the perpetrators of such incidents of violence from their schools, families, peer groups, and places of work.

(11) The availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring such firearms.

(12) The availability of information regarding the construction of weapons, including explosive devices, and any impact of such information on such incidents of violence.

(13) Depictions of violence in the video game, media and entertainment industry.

(14) Poverty or other socioeconomic factors on creating tendencies toward violence.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: mass shootings (in general and in specific, e.g. 2012 Aurora shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting)

88 |

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, the right to keep and bear arms is not unlimited Commissive: Yes, a study that examines the impact of various elements upon the perpetrators of mass shootings. Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: yes, the bill is an introduction of legislation that possibly has effect on the audience.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “(…) a peer-reviewed factual study of incidents of mass shootings in the United States.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; emphasizing abnormality of event “ In conducting….. ……toward violence.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; emphasizing abnormality of event Metaphors Section 2 of the Bill contains an extensive list of various definitions of characteristics, types and brands of weapons that are subject to the ban and were used or similar to the weapons used in mass shootings, e.g. the Smith & Wesson M&P15 rifle that was used during the 2012 Aurora shooting or the Bushmaster XM15 that was used during the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. - showing vulnerability Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability 89 | showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the second text (when introduced to the Senate on January 24, 2013) of the first unit of analysis. A slightly revised version that was reported to the Senate on March 14, 2013. Only this latter version includes section 7 about the study by national institutes of justice on mass shootings. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: none

90 |

Unit of analysis: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) Securitizing actor: Sen. Diane Feinstein (D), gun control advocate Date: January 24, 2013 Type of act: Speech at press conference Location/means of communication: Press conference about the introduction of the AWB of 2013 Source: U.S. Capitol. (2013, January 24). Assault Weapons Ban Bill (Statement of Sen. Dianne Feinstein). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?310581-1/assault-weapons- ban-bill&start=444.

I remain horrified by the mass murder committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, and I'm also incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again in our country.

Weapons designed originally for the military to kill large numbers of people in close combat are replicated for civilian use. They fall into the hands – one way or another – of grievance killers, of gangs, of those who are mentally unstable or ill.

They are sold out of trunks and backseats in cities as well as gun shows with no questions asked.

Massacres have taken place in businesses, law practices, malls, movie theatres and especially schools.

These massacres don’t seem to stop. They continue on: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek. The common thread in these shootings is each gunman used a semi- automatic assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine.

Military-style assault weapons have but one purpose – and in my view that’s a military purpose – to hold at the hip if possible to spray fire to be able to kill large numbers.

Since the last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, and incidentally in the 10 years it was in place, no one took it to court. More than 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. More than 450 have been injured.

We should be outraged by how easy it is for perpetrators of these horrific crimes to obtain powerful military-style weapons.

Today, my colleagues and I are introducing a bill to prohibit the sale, transfer, manufacture, and importation of assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition feeding devices that can accept more than 10 rounds.

Let me briefly describe the legislation we’re introducing.

We prohibit 158 specifically named military-style firearms. Since the 1994 law expired, there has been an influx of new models of assault weapons. These models are more powerful, more lethal, and more technologically advanced than the weapons were in 1993.

91 |

Our bill also prohibits other semi-automatic rifles, handguns, and shotguns that can accept a detachable magazine and have one military characteristic. One criticism of the 1994 law was that it was too characteristic test to define it and that was too easy to work around. Manufacturers could simply remove one of the characteristics and the firearm was legal. The bill we are introducing today – it will be – will make it much more difficult to work around by moving a one-characteristic test

The bill also prevents and prohibits specific loopholes such as the slide-iron stock, which can be added to an AR-15 which essentially makes it mimic automatic weapons – and it’s legal. Thumbhole stocks and bullet buttons – these are all modifications that make it easy for manufacturers to evade the law.

The bill prohibits semi-automatic rifles and handguns with a fixed magazine that can accept more than 10 round.

Elimination of the 10-year sunset.

Let me tell you what the bill will not do. It will not affect hunting or sporting firearms. Instead, the bill protects hunters and sportsmen by protecting 2,200 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes. They are – by make and model – exempted from the legislation. When we did this bill in 1993, there were 375; today there are 2,200.

Finally the bill subjects existing or grandfathered weapons to a background check in the event the weapon is sold or transferred.

So, we have tried to learn from the bill. We have tried to recognize legal hunting rights. We have recognized legal defense rights. We have tried to recognize the right of a citizen to legally possess a weapon – no weapon is taken from anyone. The purpose is to dry up the supply of these weapons over time; therefore there is no sunset on this bill.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: mass shootings (In general and in specific: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2011 Tucson shooting, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting)

Intratextual meaning: Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: yes, e.g. weak gun laws allow mass shootings to happen Commissive: yes, introducing a bill Expressive: yes, e.g. horrified, outraged Directive: yes, suggesting to be outraged by how easy it is for the perpetrators to get a gun Declarative: yes, declaring that a bill is going to be introduced today

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings

92 |

“I remain horrified by the mass murder committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, (…)” - evoke emotional reaction “I'm also incensed that our weak gun laws allow these mass killings to be carried out again and again and again in our country.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; emphasizing frustration “Massacres have taken place in businesses, law practices, malls, movie theatres and especially schools.” - showing vulnerability; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; appealing to existent community “These massacres don’t seem to stop. They continue on: Columbine, Virginia Tech, Aurora, Tucson, Oak Creek. The common thread in these shootings is each gunman used a semi-automatic assault weapon or large-capacity ammunition magazine.” - emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; showing vulnerability; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “More than 350 people have been killed with assault weapons. More than 450 have been injured.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events Metaphors “They fall into the hands – one way or another – of grievance killers, of gangs, of those who are mentally unstable or ill.” - creating an outgroup; showing vulnerability; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “They are sold out of trunks and backseats in cities as well as gun shows with no questions asked.” - NB. the so-called gun show loophole is a reference to several mass shootings, e.g. the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2012 Aurora shooting, the Columbine High School massacre and the Virginia Tech shooting, were the perpetrator bought his gun at a gun show - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “We should be outraged by how easy it is for perpetrators of these horrific crimes to obtain powerful military-style weapons.” - appealing to existent community; creating a community; creating an outgroup; showing vulnerability; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; emphasizing frustration; evoke anger Analogies none Emotions “I remain horrified by the mass murder committed at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut, (…)” - evoke emotional reaction Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): 93 | appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the first text of the first unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: -Referring to the already drafted bill, that was introduced later that day January 24, 2013), by introducing the core points of the legislation. -Also referring to the Federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 by comparing it to the current draft and emphasizing important differences and improvements,

94 |

Unit of analysis: Manchin-Toomey Amendment (April 11, 2013) Securitizing actor: Sen. Joe Manchin (D), gun control advocate Date: April 11, 2013 Type of act: S.Amndt.715 to S.649 (submitted and proposed on April 11, 2013) Location/means of communication: Senate Source: 159 Cong. Rec. S2613-2618 (daily ed. Apr. 11, 2013) (S. Amdt.715 to S.649, 113th Congress).

N.B. Because of the length, only the relevant parts of S.Amndt.S.649 are included.

SA 715. Mr. MANCHIN (for himself, Mr. TOOMEY, Mr. KIRK, and Mr. SCHUMER) proposed an amendment to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes; as follows (…) TITLE I—PUBLIC SAFETY AND SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS PROTECTION ACT (…) SEC. 102. FINDINGS. (…) (4) There are deficits in the background check system in existence prior to the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records. (5) Congress and the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership, dangerous criminals and the seriously mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms; therefore, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people. (…) Subtitle A—Ensuring That All Individuals Who Should Be Prohibited From Buying a Gun Are Listed in the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (…) ‘‘SEC. 103. GRANTS TO STATES FOR IMPROVEMENT OF COORDINATION AND AUTOMATION OF NICS RECORD REPORTING. ‘‘(a) AUTHORIZATION.—From amounts made available to carry out this section, the Attorney General shall make grants to States, Indian Tribal governments, and State court systems, in a manner consistent with the National Criminal History Improvement Program and consistent with State plans for integration, automation, and accessibility of criminal history records, for use by the State, or units of local government of the State, Indian Tribal government, or State court system to improve the automation and transmittal of mental health records and criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments to Federal and State record repositories in accordance with section 102 and the National Criminal History Improvement Program. (…) Subtitle B—Providing a Responsible and Consistent Background Check Process

95 |

SEC. 121. PURPOSE. The purpose of this subtitle is to enhance the current background check process in the United States to ensure criminals and the mentally ill are not able to purchase firearms. (…) (2), it shall be unlawful for any person other than a licensed dealer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed importer to complete the transfer of a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, if such transfer occurs— ‘‘(A) at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof; or ‘‘(B) pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of his intent to transfer, or the transferee of his intent to acquire, the firearm (…)a SEC. 129. RULE OF CONSTRUCTION. Nothing in this subtitle, or an amendment made by this subtitle, shall be construed— (1) to extend background check requirements to transfers other than those made at gun shows or on the curtilage thereof, or pursuant to an advertisement, posting, display, or other listing on the Internet or in a publication by the transferor of the intent of the transferor to transfer, or the transferee of the intent of the transferee to acquire, the firearm; (…) Subtitle C—National Commission on Mass Violence (…) SEC. 142. NATIONAL COMMISSION ON MASS VIOLENCE. (a) ESTABLISHMENT OF COMMISSION.—There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence (in this subtitle referred to as the ‘‘Commission’’) to study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence. (…) SEC. 143. DUTIES OF THE COMMISSION. (a) STUDY.— (1) IN GENERAL.—It shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct a comprehensive factual study of incidents of mass violence, including incidents of mass violence not involving firearms, in the context of the many acts of senseless mass violence that occur in the United States each year, in order to determine the root causes of such mass violence. (2) MATTERS TO BE STUDIED.—In determining the root causes of these recurring and tragic acts of mass violence, the Commission shall study any matter that the Commission determines relevant to meeting the requirements of paragraph (1), including at a minimum— (A) the role of schools, including the level of involvement and awareness of teachers and school administrators in the lives of their students and the availability of mental health and other resources and strategies to help detect and counter tendencies of students towards mass violence; (B) the effectiveness of and resources available for school security strategies to prevent incidents of mass violence; (C) the role of families and the availability of mental health and other resources and strategies to help families detect and counter tendencies toward mass violence;

96 |

(D) the effectiveness and use of, and resources available to, the mental health system in understanding, detecting, and countering tendencies toward mass violence, as well as the effects of treatments and therapies; (E) whether medical doctors and other mental health professionals have the ability, without negative legal or professional consequences, to notify law enforcement officials when a patient is a danger to himself or others; (F) the nature and impact of the alienation of the perpetrators of such incidents of mass violence from their schools, families, peer groups, and places of work; (G) the role that domestic violence plays in causing incidents of mass violence; (H) the effect of depictions of mass violence in the media, and any impact of such depictions on incidents of mass violence; (I) the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring such firearms, and all positive and negative impacts of such availability and nature on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence; (J) the role of current prosecution rates in contributing to the availability of weapons that are used in mass violence; (K) the availability of information regarding the construction of weapons, including explosive devices, and any impact of such information on such incidents of mass violence; (L) the views of law enforcement officials, religious leaders, mental health experts, and other relevant officials on the root causes and prevention of mass violence; (M) incidents in which firearms were used to stop mass violence; and (N) any other area that the Commission determines contributes to the causes of mass violence. (3) TESTIMONY OF VICTIMS AND SURVIVORS.— In determining the root causes of these recurring and tragic incidents of mass violence, the Commission shall, in accordance with section 144(a), take the testimony of victims and survivors to learn and memorialize their views and experiences regarding such incidents of mass violence. (b) RECOMMENDATIONS.—Based on the findings of the study required under subsection (a), the Commission shall make recommendations to the President and Congress to address the causes of these recurring and tragic incidents of mass violence and to reduce such incidents of mass violence. (…)

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: mass shootings (in general and in specific: various mass shootings related to the gun show loophole)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, deficits in the background check system exist and for people who should not have a gun, background must be installed. Commissive: Yes, a study that examines the root causes of recurring acts of mass violence. Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: Yes, the bill is an introduction of legislation that possibly has effect on the audience.

97 |

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “There is established a commission to be known as the National Commission on Mass Violence to study the availability and nature of firearms, including the means of acquiring firearms, issues relating to mental health, and all positive and negative impacts of the availability and nature of firearms on incidents of mass violence or in preventing mass violence.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “(…) a comprehensive factual study of incidents of mass violence, including incidents of mass violence not involving firearms, in the context of the many acts of senseless mass violence that occur in the United States each year, in order to determine the root causes of such mass violence.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “In determining… …mass violence.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “In determining the root causes of these recurring and tragic incidents of mass violence, the Commission shall (…) take the testimony of victims and survivors to learn and memorialize their views and experiences regarding such incidents of mass violence.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; appealing to existent community “(…) the Commission shall make recommendations to the President and Congress to address the causes of these recurring and tragic incidents of mass violence and to reduce such incidents of mass violence.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Metaphors “(…) an amendment to the bill S. 649, to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes; (…)” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective “There are deficits in the background check system in existence prior to the date of enactment of this Act and the Department of Justice should make it a top priority to work with States to swiftly input missing records, including mental health records.” - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; showing vulnerability “Congress and the citizens of the United States agree that in order to promote safe and responsible gun ownership, dangerous criminals and the seriously mentally ill should be prohibited from possessing firearms; therefore, it should be incumbent upon all citizens to ensure weapons are not being transferred to such people.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “(…) to improve the automation and transmittal of mental health records and criminal history dispositions, records relevant to determining whether a person has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence, court orders, and mental health adjudications or commitments to Federal and State record repositories (…)” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective 98 |

“The purpose of this subtitle is to enhance the current background check process in the United States to ensure criminals and the mentally ill are not able to purchase firearms.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; showing vulnerability “at a gun show or event, on the curtilage thereof (…)” – NB. the so-called gun show loophole is a reference to several mass shootings, e.g. the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2012 Aurora shooting, the Columbine High School massacre and the Virginia Tech shooting, were the perpetrator bought his gun at a gun show - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the fourth text of the first unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors:

99 |

This texts indirectly refers to the content of the AWB by establishing a similar commission to conduct a study into the nature and root causes of acts of mass violence, that include mass shootings. References to own texts: none

100 |

Unit of analysis: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) Securitizing actor: President Obama (D), gun control advocate Date: April 17, 2013 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: White House Source: The White House. (2013, April 17). President Obama Speaks on Common-Sense Measures to Reduce Gun Violence. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/photos- and-video/video/2013/04/17/president-obama-speaks-common-sense-measures-reduce- gun-violence#transcript.

THE PRESIDENT: A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies — including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers –- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.

Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders – - not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.

By now, it’s well known that 90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea. Most Americans think that’s already the law.

And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.

A majority of senators voted “yes” to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.

I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet. So

101 |

60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.

Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks. In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.

But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies wilfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.

And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.

But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun. There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections. They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.

And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote “no.”

One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.

And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.

I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, 102 | the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?

I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. “A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?

So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

But this effort is not over. I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.

But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.

To all the people who supported this legislation — law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are — you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.

To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one. The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe. Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way. But they’re better organized. They’re better financed. They’ve been at it longer. And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that’s the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can’t get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.

So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this. And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington. And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.

And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.

103 |

And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That’s what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.

And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m assuming that’s not a temporary thing. I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.

I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.

Thank you very much, everybody.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: mass shootings (in general and in specific: 2011 Tucson shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that we can still bring changes to reduce gun violence; e.g. expressed belief that proposed gun legislation showed respect for owners and victims. Commissive: Yes, going to address several issues to reduce gun violence. Expressive: Yes, e.g. addresses the emotions of relatives of the victims. Directive: Yes, urge people to let leadership and lobbyists know that they did not represent their views. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “ (…) and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers (…)” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown.” - uniting/creating a community “When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That’s what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m 104 | assuming that’s not a temporary thing.” - evoke emotional reaction; uniting/creating a community Metaphors “(…) in response to too many tragedies (…) this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; uniting/creating a community; appealing to existent community “They blocked common-sense gun reforms even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.” - emphasizing frustration; evoke emotional reaction; creating an outgroup (in this case not perpetrators, but the anti-gun legislation politicians) “(…) that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun. We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness.” - creating an outgroup; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “(…) guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet.” - showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective “Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration; creating an outgroup “One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres. And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil. We learned that tragically just two days ago.” - evoke emotional reaction; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is not effective (But, in a realistic way. Not breaking down the proposed legislation, but being realistic that it cannot prevent every act of violence) “All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check. That didn’t make our kids safer.” - NB. the so-called gun show loophole is a reference to several mass shootings, e.g. the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2012 Aurora shooting, the Columbine High School massacre and the Virginia Tech shooting, were the perpetrator bought his gun at a gun show - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; showing vulnerability; evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing frustration “(…) we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe.” - appealing to existent community; 105 | uniting/creating a community; evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.” - evoke emotional reaction “The memories of these children demand it.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Analogies none Emotions “Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children.” - evoke emotional reaction “I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community; evoke emotional reaction Stereotypes ““A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said.” - evoke emotional reaction; evoke anger Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children.” - evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress.” - emphasizing frustration Interactions “(…) including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, (…)” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence. She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.” - uniting/creating a community; appealing to existent community “I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. “A prop,” somebody called them. “Emotional blackmail,” some outlet said. Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?” - creating an outgroup (in this case not perpetrators, but the anti-gun legislation commentators and politicians); evoke emotional reaction; evoke anger; appealing to existent community

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup 106 | remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the fifth and last texts of the first unit of analysis. One week after the speech of Sen. Lee, almost four months after the introduction of the legislation and moments after the AWB of 2013 was defeated in the Senate. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: The act of Obama refers to both the AWB of 2013 and its initiators, like Sen. Feinstein. He discusses similar aspects of the AWB that Sen. Feinstein also addressed in January, e.g. that it is supported by the majority of the American people, the need for background checks and the various loopholes in the current legislation, like the Internet and gun show loopholes. He, furthermore, refers and reacts to the carious anti-gun control acts that have been made in the past couple of months since the introduction of the AWB of 2013, including the acts of Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee. Obama makes some statements about their arguments or rather their lies and lack of sensible arguments. He addresses their argument about harming Second Amendment rights (Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee), about the ineffectiveness of the proposed legislation because it cannot stop every incident (Sen. Cruz and Sen. Lee) and about the enabling of a ‘Big Brother’-style government with regard to guns by the proposed legislation (Sen. Lee). References to own texts: none

107 |

Unit of analysis: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) Securitizing actor: Sen. Ted Cruz (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: January 31, 2013 Type of act: Testimony at Hearing of the Committee on the Judiciary Location/means of communication: Senate Judiciary Committee Hearing on Gun Violence Source: Gun Violence: Hearing before the Committee on the Judiciary, Senate, 113th Congress. (2013) (Testimony of Ted Cruz).

CRUZ: I thank you Mr. Chairman and it is a pleasure to serve with you, and all the members of this committee. I want to begin by thanking each of the distinguished witnesses who have come here today. Thank you for taking your time. In particular, I want to thank you Captain Kelly for your service to this country, and for your wife’s extraordinary journey, for her coming here.

CRUZ: Congresswoman Giffords has been lifted up in prayer by millions of Americans, and her heroic recovery is inspirational. And please know that you, and your family will continue in our prayers in the years to come.

My wife and I have two little girls. They are 4 and 2. I think no parent, and in particular no parent of young children could -- could watch what happened in Newtown without being utterly horrified -- utterly horrified at the depravity of a deranged criminal who -- who -- who would senselessly murder 20 young children at an elementary school.

Unfortunately in Washington, emotion often leads to bad policies. When a tragedy occurs, often this body rushes to act. And at times it seems the considerations of this body operate in a fact- free zone. I will suggest a philosophy that I think should guide this body in assessing gun violence, and then I would like to highlight and ask a few questions on a couple of points that I think are particularly salient to addressing this issue.

The philosophy I would suggest makes sense is that we should be vigorous and unrelenting in working to prevent, to deter and to punish violent criminals. I have spent a substantial portion of my professional life working in law enforcement. And the tragedies that are inflicted on innocent Americans every day by criminals are heartbreaking, and we need to do more to prevent them.

At the same time, I think we should remain vigilant in protecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens. And I think far too often, the approaches that have been suggested by this Congress to the issue of gun violence restricts the liberties of law-abiding citizens rather than targeting the violent criminals that we should be targeting.

And I would point out that I hope some of the passion we have seen from members of this committee with respect to the need to prevent violent crime will be reflected equally should we find ourselves in a judicial confirmation hearing with a judicial nominee who has a record of abusing the exclusionary rule to exclude evidence that results in a violent criminal walking free and being able to commit yet another crime. I hope we see exactly the same passion devoted to

108 | assessing whether judicial nominees will enforce our criminal laws and not frustrate the administration of justice.

Three points I think are particularly salient. The first is, in my judgment, the proposed assault weapons ban is a singularly ineffective piece of legislation.

I was having a conversation recently with a loved one in my family who asked a very reasonable question. She said, why do regular people need machine guns? And, you know, one of the things that happens in this debate is the phrase “assault weapons ban” gets a lot of people really concerned, and they assume, much like the phrase “military-style weapons” that we’re talking about ordinary citizens walking around with M-16s and Uzis that are fully automatic.

Fully automatic machine guns are already functionally illegal. Ordinary citizens cannot own them, absent very, very heavy regulation. This entire discussion does not concern machine guns, and yet I would venture to say, a large percentage of Americans do not understand that. I want to begin by talking about the assault weapons ban as it was enforced before. And I would ask for slide number 1.

The assault weapons ban that used to be in effect, according to the Department of Justice, quote, “failed to reduce the average number of victims per gun murder incident or multiple gunshot wound victims.” Now, that is the assessment of the United States Department of Justice, and that is in 1994. That was the Janet Reno Department of Justice under President Clinton that said the assault weapons ban was singularly ineffective.

If we can move to the second slide.

The Department of Justice, likewise, concluded that the assault weapons ban, quote, “under it there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” So the reaction to this tragedy in Newtown is for a lot of elected officials in Washington to rush to re-enact a law that according to the Department of Justice did absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence.

Now, why is that? That’s not accidental. Because the assault weapons ban, if it doesn’t ban machine guns, what does it ban? And what it bans, I would suggest to you, are scary-looking guns.

If we can move to slide 3.

This is a photograph of a Remington 750. It is one of the most popular hunting rifles in America. This rifle would be entirely legal under this so-called assault weapons ban.

CRUZ: Now, I have a question for you, Mr. LaPierre. Functionally, in terms of the operation of this firearm -- this is a semi-automatic firearm. You pull the trigger once, one bullet comes out. Is the operational firing mechanism in this firearm materially different from the so-called assault weapons ban that this -- this bill is targeted at?

LAPIERRE: No, it’s not. 109 |

CRUZ: Now, what the assault weapons ban instead targets are cosmetic features. So, for example, I am holding in my hand a pistol grip. Under this proposed legislation, if this piece of plastic, this pistol grip were attached to this rifle, it would suddenly become a banned assault weapon.

Now, I would ask you, Mr. LaPierre, are you aware of any evidence to suggest that attaching a piece of plastic to this rifle would make it in any way whatsoever even slightly more dangerous?

LAPIERRE: No, that -- that -- the problem with the whole bill that Senator Feinstein introduced is it’s based on falsehoods to people that do not understand firearms, to convince them that the performance characteristics of guns that they are trying to ban through that bill are different than the performance characteristics that they’re not trying to ban.

They make bigger holes. They’re rapid-fire. They spray bullets. They’re more powerful. They’re heavy armor. All of that is simply not true. I mean, the -- the AR-15 that people -- uses a .223s, and then I hear in the media all the time and people say, “Well, no deer hunter would use something that powerful.” I mean, .243s, .270s, 25.06, 30.06, .308s -- dozens of other calibers used in hunting are more powerful. I mean...

CRUZ: So let me make sure I understand that right. This deer rifle which is entirely legal and is used by millions of Americans, is the -- is sold in the identical caliber as the so-called assault weapons ban, although those look scarier because they have a piece of plastic attached to them.

LAPIERRE: And the Ruger Mini-14, which Senator Feinstein exempts in her bill, uses .223. The AR-15, which has the handle on the bottom, which she prohibits, also uses the exact same.

CRUZ: I’m -- I’m out of time. I want to make one final point if I may, which is there has been much attention drawn to gun shows. And indeed, the statistic of 40 percent has been bandied about. Now, that statistic is unfortunately based on a study that occurred before the background check went into effect. And so it is a highly dubious figure.

But I do want to point to what the Department of Justice has said, which is in slide five. The Department of Justice has said that firearms used in crimes, 1.9 percent of those firearms come from gun shows. So again, in response to this crime, this body does not act to enact anti-crime legislation to prevent violent crimes. Instead, it targets 1.9 percent of the guns, and a substantial portion of those guns were sold by licensed firearms dealers who already conducted a background check. So even that 1.9 percent, a substantial portion area already subject to a background check.

I would ask, Mr. Chairman, if we have a second round, I would like to additionally get into the effectiveness or lack thereof of gun controls.

ANALYSIS

110 |

Trauma(s) used: mass shootings (In general and in specific: 2011 Tucson shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, Columbine High School massacre, Virginia Tech shooting)

Intratextual meaning: Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: yes, e.g. belief that the 1994 AWB was not effective. E.g. belief that possible gun violence restriction harm the liberties of the citizens. Commissive: yes, states that we need to do more to stop violent criminals. Expressive: yes, expresses the horror of watching mass shooting images. Directive: no. Declarative: no.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “(…) what happened in Newtown (…) the depravity of a deranged criminal who -- who - - who would senselessly murder 20 young children at an elementary school.” - demonising offender; evoke emotional reaction “So the reaction to this tragedy in Newtown is for a lot of elected officials in Washington to rush to re-enact a law that according to the Department of Justice did absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence.” - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politician Metaphors “(…) we should be vigorous and unrelenting in working to prevent, to deter and to punish violent criminals.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now “And I think far too often, the approaches that have been suggested by this Congress to the issue of gun violence restricts the liberties of law-abiding citizens rather than targeting the violent criminals that we should be targeting.” - showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties “under it there has been no discernible reduction in the lethality and injuriousness of gun violence.” - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; showing vulnerability “So the reaction to this tragedy in Newtown is for a lot of elected officials in Washington to rush to re-enact a law that according to the Department of Justice did absolutely nothing to reduce gun violence.” - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politician “(…) much attention drawn to gun shows. And indeed, the statistic of 40 percent has been bandied about. Now, that statistic is unfortunately based on a study that occurred before the background check went into effect. And so it is a highly dubious figure.” – NB. the so- called gun show loophole is a reference to several mass shootings, e.g. the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the 2012 Aurora shooting, the Columbine High School massacre and the Virginia Tech shooting, were the perpetrator bought his gun at a gun show - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective Analogies “And I would point out that I hope some of the passion we have seen from members of this committee with respect to the need to prevent violent crime will be reflected equally should we find ourselves in a judicial confirmation hearing with a judicial nominee who 111 | has a record of abusing the exclusionary rule to exclude evidence that results in a violent criminal walking free and being able to commit yet another crime.” - emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politician; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now Emotions “(…) without being utterly horrified -- utterly horrified (…)” - evoke emotional reaction; scare the audience Stereotypes “Unfortunately in Washington, emotion often leads to bad policies. When a tragedy occurs, often this body rushes to act. And at times it seems the considerations of this body operate in a fact-free zone.” - emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politician; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; emphasizing frustration Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “Congresswoman Giffords has been lifted up in prayer by millions of Americans, and her heroic recovery is inspirational.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; appealing to existent community “My wife and I have two little girls. They are 4 and 2. I think no parent, and in particular no parent of young children could -- could watch what happened in Newtown without being utterly horrified (…)” - evoke emotional reaction; creating a community (parents); scare the audience “And the tragedies that are inflicted on innocent Americans every day by criminals are heartbreaking, and we need to do more to prevent them.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; appealing to existent community; uniting; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; showing vulnerability Interactions “(…) your wife’s extraordinary journey, for her coming here.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims “And please know that you, and your family will continue in our prayers in the years to come.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; appealing to existent community

Function of the use of trauma(s) (bold and green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events 112 | reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the third securitizing text of the first unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Sen. Cruz refers and reacts, in a general sense, to all efforts in the last few days, including the acts of Sen. Feinstein, and states that it is a sign of overreaction and rushed action. He furthermore more stresses that these approaches are in conflict with the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens. Sen. Cruz also reacts directly to the AWB of January 24, 2013, by calling it an ineffective piece of legislation, that incorrectly uses certain definitions and is misleading. He then states that the Federal AWB of 1994 was equally ineffective. This latter point also refers to the speech of Sen. Feinstein, who stated that the law of 1994, despite some criticism about some practical flaws that can be fixed, was effective and could be revived with some improvements and adjustments into the AWB of 2013. Other indirect references to the speech of Sen. Feinstein entail the questioning of facts and figures by Sen. Cruz regarding the gun show loophole and the idea of installing background checks that was presented by, among others, Sen. Feinstein in her speech act. References to own texts: none

113 |

Unit of analysis: Assault Weapons Ban of 2013 (January 24, 2013) Securitizing actor: Sen. Mike Lee (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: April 10, 2013 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Senate floor Source: U.S. Senate. (2013, April 10). Senator Lee on Filibustering Gun Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?312017-7/senator-lee-filibustering-gun-legislation.

For several weeks now, Washington and the rest of the country have been debating several new gun control proposals. Along with a number of my colleagues, including the minority leader, I’ve declared my intention to resist an immediate vote on any new restriction that would serve primarily to limit law-abiding citizens, rather than reduce crime in America. Unfortunately, the current gun control proposal would do just that.

More than two weeks ago, we informed the majority leader that we will exercise our procedural right to require a 60-vote threshold in order to bring this legislation to the floor. We've taken this step under our Senate’s rules and procedure for three principal reasons. First, the Senate serves an important function in our republic by encouraging deliberation and making it more difficult for a temporary majority to impose its will unilaterally. Unlike the House of Representatives, the Senate's rules and procedures allow for meaningful debate and help ensure that a bare majority of senators cannot impose controversial legislation on the American people without robust debate, discussion, and broad-based and bipartisan consensus. Contrary to the statements made by the President and by some of my friends across the aisle and even a few from within my own caucus, we have no intention of preventing debate or votes. Quite the opposite. By objecting to the motion to proceed, we guarantee that the Senate and the American people would have at least three additional days to assess and evaluate exactly how this particular bill might affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether or not it might have any significant impact on violent crime. Already we've seen consensus against passing any new gun legislation, at least not without broad bipartisan support. During the recent budget debate, I offered an amendment to establish a two-thirds vote requirement for the passage of any new gun legislation. Six democratic senators voted with a nearly united Republican caucus to support my amendment by a vote of 50-49. That vote demonstrated that a bare majority of senators, including at least six democrats, believe that new gun legislation should have broad bipartisan support in the Senate before it's passed and before it has the opportunity to become law. A 60-vote threshold will help ensure that new gun laws aren't forced through the senate with the narrow support of just one party.

Second, this debate is about a lot more than just magazine clips and pistol grips. It's about the purpose of the Second Amendment and why our constitutionally protected right to self-defense is an essential part of self-government. At its core, the Second Amendment helps ensure that individuals and local communities can serve as the first line of defense against threats to our persons and our property. Any limitation on this fundamental right of self-defense makes us more dependent on our government for our own protection. Government can't be everywhere at all times, so the practical effect of limiting our individual rights is to make us less safe. This is deeply troubling to many Americans. Any legislation that would restrict our basic right to self-defense deserves serious and open debate. Further, as we've seen just today, Washington

114 | sometimes prefers to negotiate backroom deals made in secret, far from the eyes of the American people rather than engaging in thorough, open and transparent debate right here on the senate floor. The day before the majority leader has set the vote to proceed, the bill's critical components are still not there. Right before we have set the vote for the motion to proceed to the bill, we still don't know what these critical components look like. We have no legislative text to evaluate the so-called compromise language on background checks, and we have no sense of what amendments, if any amendments at all, might be allowed to be offered. So requiring a 60-vote threshold helps us solve some of these problems and it helps us ensure that we have a meaningful debate rather than a series of backroom deals to push such controversial legislation through Congress with solely a bare majority to back it up.

Finally, many of the provisions that we expect to see in the bill are both constitutionally problematic and would serve primarily to limit the freedoms of law-abiding American citizens. Some of the proposals like, for example, universal background checks, would allow the federal government to surveil law-abiding citizens who exercise their constitutional rights. One of the provisions we expect to see in the bill based on what we saw in the judiciary committee on which I sit, would allow the attorney general of the United States to promulgate regulations that could lead to a national registry system for guns. Something my constituents in Utah are very concerned about, and understandably so. You see, the Federal government has no business monitoring where or how often you go to church, what books and newspapers you read, who you vote for, your health conditions, what you eat for breakfast and the details of your private life, including your lawful exercise of rights protected by the Second Amendment and other provisions of the bill of rights. Such limitations may, of course, at times make it harder for the government to do what it feels like it needs to do, but we have to remember that the Constitution was not written to maximize or protect the convenience of our government. The Constitution was written to protect individual liberty, and thankfully so. We must not narrow the application of constitutional protections in haste, nor should we allow a bare majority to jeopardize basic rights of the American people, rights protected in the first ten amendments to the Constitution. The Senate and the American people are engaged in an important debate today. I look forward to this debate, and I hope that others will join me and my colleagues in demanding that our discussions take place in full view of the American people.

Thank you

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: mass shootings (in general)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. believe that the proposed legislation will harm the Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens. Commissive: Yes, intention to resist an immediate vote. Expressive: Yes, e.g. expresses the concerns of his constituents in Utah. Directive: Yes, inviting other colleagues and the American people to join the debate. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings 115 | none Metaphors “I’ve declared my intention to resist an immediate vote on any new restriction that would serve primarily to limit law-abiding citizens, rather than reduce crime in America.” - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; emphasizing frustration “how this particular bill might affect the rights of law-abiding citizens and whether or not it might have any significant impact on violent crime.” - showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; emphasizing frustration “At its core, the Second Amendment helps ensure that individuals and local communities can serve as the first line of defense against threats to our persons and our property.” - reassuring the audience of security; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; appealing to existent community Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts:

116 |

Chronologically, this is the fourth text in the first unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Sen. Lee is just generally referring to new gun proposals, including the AWB of 2013 and the expected Manchin-Toomey Amendment, and the discussion and debate that surrounded these proposals. His reaction was that the proposals would primarily limit law abiding citizens. References to own texts: none

117 |

B. Texts of the second unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013)

Unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013) Securitizing actor: Sen. Dick Durbin (D), gun control advocate Date: September 17, 2013 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Senate floor Source: U.S. Senate (2013, September 17). Senator Dick Durbin on Navy Yard Shooting. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?315064-7/senate-dick-durbin-navy-yard- shooting.

Flags across America are being flown at half-mast this morning, because of the terrible tragedy which occurred out that door, one and a half miles away, yesterday. Men and women who work for our Department of Defense to keep America safe, reported to work as usual on a Monday morning. And then tragedy struck. The gunman appeared with an assault rifle, several other weapons, at the end of it, 12 innocent people died, another dozen or so seriously injured. This capital was in shock. It was locked down at some point to ward off the possibility there were other shooters and more danger outside. And we watched as the people that worked at the navy yard and those that work at the adjoining buildings waited patiently for the police to do their important and courageous work. At the end of the day, they showed television footage of these employees being bused away from the navy yard to a safe metro location to return home, all but the 12 of them, who sadly lost their lives to a senseless gun tragedy.

We read the papers this morning, trying to understand what could possibly motivate a person to do this and as we read the background of the shooter, it is clear there were moments in his life when he had used a firearm to shoot the tires of the car that he thought shouldn't be parked in his driveway and shooting a gun in his own apartment that went to through the ceiling to an adjoining apartment. Those sorts of things might have been warning signals. Questions are raised. How can a man with that kind of a background end up getting the necessary security clearance for a military contractor to go into this navy yard, to be permitted to going to this navy yard. How did he get this weapons in this navy yard, an assault rifle and other firearms. Questions that still remain to be answered.

God forbid we go on with business as usual today and not understand what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday brings into question some important values in America. If we value our right for ourselves and our families and our children to be safe, if we value this constitution, if we value the right of every American to enjoy their liberties with reasonable limitations, then we need to return to issues that are of importance. There was an issue before this senate several months ago, a bipartisan amendment, offered by senators Manchin and Toomey, that would have taken an extra step to keep guns out of the hands of those who have a history of felonies or people who are mentally unstable. The vast majority of Americans think this is just common sense. We can protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to use guns in a responsible, legal way for sporting and hunting and self-defense. But we have got to keep hands to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of those that would misuse them. Those that have a history of misusing firearms, the mentally unstable who can't be trusted to have a firearm. But today we pause and reflect on the lives lost. I hope the lessons are learned. I had a hearing scheduled 118 | this morning before the senate judiciary committee on a controversial issue involving firearms. In light of what happened yesterday and in light of the uncertainty of our schedule today, I am rescheduling that hearing. It is an important one and I want to say to those the following it, that it will be rescheduled. But at this point in time, we have decided to postpone it.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: mass shootings (in general and in specific: the Washington Navy Yard shooting)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, expresses belief that America has to return to issues of gun control and keep weapons out hands of people who misuse them. Commissive: Yes, do everything to keep guns out of the hands of these kind of perpetrators Expressive: Yes, expresses shock and sadness Directive: Yes, suggests to return to important issues of gun control Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “Men and women who work for our Department of Defense to keep America safe, reported to work as usual on a Monday morning. And then tragedy struck. The gunman appeared with an assault rifle, several other weapons, at the end of it, 12 innocent people died, another dozen or so seriously injured.” – remembrance; evoke emotional reaction “It was locked down at some point to ward off the possibility there were other shooters and more danger outside.” - evoke emotional reaction; scare the audience “At the end of the day, they showed television footage of these employees being bused away from the navy yard to a safe metro location to return home, all but the 12 of them, who sadly lost their lives to a senseless gun tragedy.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “(…) it is clear there were moments in his life when he had used a firearm to shoot the tires of the car that he thought shouldn't be parked in his driveway and shooting a gun in his own apartment that went to through the ceiling to an adjoining apartment. Those sorts of things might have been warning signals.” - showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective; need for new gun legislation or regulation; demonising offender Metaphors “Flags across America are being flown at half-mast this morning, because of the terrible tragedy which occurred out that door, one and a half miles away, yesterday.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance “There was an issue before this senate several months ago, a bipartisan amendment, offered by senators Manchin and Toomey, that would have taken an extra step to keep guns out of the hands of those who have a history of felonies or people who are mentally unstable.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “But we have got to keep hands to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of those that would misuse them. Those that have a history of misusing firearms, the mentally unstable who can't be trusted to have a firearm.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; creating outgroup 119 |

“In light of what happened yesterday and in light of the uncertainty of our schedule today, I am rescheduling that hearing.” - evoke emotional reaction Analogies none Emotions “This capital was in shock.” - evoke emotional reaction Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “And we watched as the people that worked at the navy yard and those that work at the adjoining buildings waited patiently for the police to do their important and courageous work.” - evoke emotional reaction, uniting/creating a community “We read the papers this morning, trying to understand what could possibly motivate a person to do this and as we read the background of the shooter, (…)” – “But today we pause and reflect on the lives lost.” - emphasizing frustration; evoke emotional reaction, uniting/creating a community Interactions “Questions are raised. How can a man with that kind of a background end up getting the necessary security clearance for a military contractor to go into this navy yard, to be permitted to going to this navy yard. How did he get this weapons in this navy yard, an assault rifle and other firearms.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective; demonising offender “God forbid we go on with business as usual today and not understand what happened yesterday. What happened yesterday brings into question some important values in America. If we value our right for ourselves and our families and our children to be safe, if we value this constitution, if we value the right of every American to enjoy their liberties with reasonable limitations, then we need to return to issues that are of importance.” – emphasizing frustration; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting/creating a community “But we have got to keep hands to do everything we can to keep guns out of the hands of those that would misuse them. Those that have a history of misusing firearms, the mentally unstable who can't be trusted to have a firearm.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community; creating outgroup

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability 120 | showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the first text of the second unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: As the first text of this unit of analysis there is, logically, no reaction or reference to the other texts of this unit. Sen. Durbin is referring to the text of the Manchin-Toomey Amendment of the last unit of analysis. He uses this bipartisan act to illustrate the need for new legislation and how this could be effective in keeping guns out of the hands of mentally unstable persons like the perpetrator of the Washington Navy Yard shooting. References to own texts:

121 |

Unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013) Securitizing actor: Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D), gun control advocate Date: September 18, 2013 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: News conference about gun violence Source: Newtown Action Alliance. (2013, September 18). Gun Violence (Statement of Rep. Nancy Pelosi). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?315091-1/gun-violence.

"Thank you. Good afternoon. Thank you, Po Murray; thank you, Congresswoman Robin Kelly for your leadership for bringing us together. It is an honor to be here once again with Senator [Richard] Blumenthal, Senator [Chris] Murphy of Connecticut, with our colleague [Congresswoman] Elizabeth Esty who represents Newtown. And I want to pay special recognition to [Congressman] Mike Thompson of California, who's the Chair of our task force on gun violence prevention in the Congress and has done a great job bringing us together in the House around the bipartisan legislation for background checks with Congressman King of New York. Thank you, [Congressman] Thompson.

[Applause]

""Our hearts are broken; our spirit is not.' Every time the families of Newtown come to our nation's capital to share their stories, we remember these words of the Sandy Hook promise. We respect how those families and others are turning grief into action and how they are moving forward with purpose and strength. And here so many from around the country are gathered.

"Nine months after a lone gunman took the lives of 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, we remember that nearly 8,000 American lives have already been taken in America -- 8,000 since that day. Nine months later, we remember that the people of Newtown are not alone in confronting the tragedy of gun violence -- or in taking action against it.

"No community is immune from the pain or presence of gun violence -- and even at a military facility as secure as the Navy Yard, right here in Washington, D.C. Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and families of the victims of the Navy Yard violence.

"From Connecticut, from Aurora to Oak Creek, from Virginia Tech to Tucson to Chicago, across our country every place you turn, every day, America is reminded of the need for action to promote gun safety with every life cut short, with every new story of terror and violence.

"With us today are Americans from across the country ready to share their stories: Carlos Soto, whose sister, Victoria, was a teacher at Sandy Hook and was very brave in trying to save children's lives; Shundra Robinson, who lost her child three years ago in Chicago, Tom Sullivan and Sandy Philips, each of whom lost a child in a movie theater in Aurora.

"You know, every time one of these episodes happens -- like yesterday, and Aurora, and Newtown -- we have a moment of silence in the Capitol. It's a tradition. But we're almost unworthy of that tradition to think the moment of silence should make us feel better. When the fact is, we don't need a moment of silence. We need a day of action.

122 |

[Applause]

"Mr. Thompson has over 180 co-sponsors in a bipartisan way of the bill. The families want and deserve a vote. I believe if the bill were brought to the floor, it would pass and it would pass in a bipartisan way. Let's take a vote.

"Thank you all for making this possible."

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shooting (in general and in specific: Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, Washington Navy Yard shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2011 Tucson shooting, Virginia Tech shooting, Wisconsin Sikh temple shooting, etc.)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, belief that action is needed. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, expresses emotional pain, grief, and that hearts are broken, but spirits are strong. Directive: Invites people to join in action instead of moments of silence. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “"Our hearts are broken; our spirit is not.' Every time the families of Newtown come to our nation's capital to share their stories, we remember these words of the Sandy Hook promise.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency; emphasizing frustration “Nine months after a lone gunman took the lives of 20 children and six educators at Sandy Hook Elementary School, we remember that nearly 8,000 American lives have already been taken in America -- 8,000 since that day. Nine months later, we remember that the people of Newtown are not alone in confronting the tragedy of gun violence -- or in taking action against it.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; uniting/creating a community; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these event “No community is immune from the pain or presence of gun violence -- and even at a military facility as secure as the Navy Yard, right here in Washington, D.C. Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and families of the victims of the Navy Yard violence.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; uniting/creating a community; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these event “From Connecticut, from Aurora to Oak Creek, from Virginia Tech to Tucson to Chicago, across our country every place you turn, every day, America is reminded of the need for action to promote gun safety with every life cut short, with every new story of terror and violence.” - emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these event; remembrance “You know, every time one of these episodes happens -- like yesterday, and Aurora, and Newtown -- we have a moment of silence in the Capitol. It's a tradition. But we're almost 123 | unworthy of that tradition to think the moment of silence should make us feel better. When the fact is, we don't need a moment of silence. We need a day of action.” - remembrance Metaphors “(…) with our colleague [Congresswoman] Elizabeth Esty who represents Newtown.” – remembrance “The families want and deserve a vote.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency Analogies none Emotions “"Our hearts are broken; our spirit is not.' Every time the families of Newtown come to our nation's capital to share their stories, we remember these words of the Sandy Hook promise.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “No community is immune from the pain or presence of gun violence -- and even at a military facility as secure as the Navy Yard, right here in Washington, D.C. Our hearts and prayers go out to the victims and families of the victims of the Navy Yard violence.” - emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; appealing to existent community “From Connecticut, from Aurora to Oak Creek, from Virginia Tech to Tucson to Chicago, across our country every place you turn, every day, America is reminded of the need for action to promote gun safety with every life cut short, with every new story of terror and violence.” - uniting/creating a community; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these event; evoke emotional reaction “You know, every time one of these episodes happens -- like yesterday, and Aurora, and Newtown -- we have a moment of silence in the Capitol. It's a tradition. But we're almost unworthy of that tradition to think the moment of silence should make us feel better. When the fact is, we don't need a moment of silence. We need a day of action.” - evoke anger; emphasizing frustration; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Interactions “We respect how those families and others are turning grief into action and how they are moving forward with purpose and strength. And here so many from around the country are gathered.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; uniting/creating a community “With us today are Americans from across the country ready to share their stories: Carlos Soto, whose sister, Victoria, was a teacher at Sandy Hook and was very brave in trying to save children's lives; Shundra Robinson, who lost her child three years ago in Chicago, Tom Sullivan and Sandy Philips, each of whom lost a child in a movie theater in Aurora.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community 124 | uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the second text of the second unit of analysis. This speech is held at the same event as the next speech text of Sen. Blumenthal. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Rep. Pelosi shortly mention the name of Sen. Blumentahl as being present at this press conference. References to own texts:

125 |

Unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013) Securitizing actor: Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D), gun control advocate Date: September 18, 2013 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: News conference about gun violence Source: Newtown Action Alliance. (2013, September 18). Gun Violence (Statement of Sen. Richard Blumenthal). Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?315091-1/gun- violence.

Let me, first of all, thank all of the loved ones of the victims who are here for your courage and your resolve and your strength in once again sharing your grief and your personal story, knowing how difficult it is for you as it is for Carlos to be here and Vicki lighted a lot of lives as a teacher, a person, and having been to her funeral and seeing the outpouring of love for her. She will continue to live in every one of these victims. We need to make sure every one of them lives, that we keep faith with them, and that we resolve, as leader Pelosi said so beautifully, that we have not just a moment of silence, not just a day of silence and not just a day of action. It has to be sustained and purposeful and continuing. Because that is the fight that it will take to achieve a vote in the house, to make sure we get 60 votes in the senate, but we will prevail. History is on our side.

[ applause ]

I thought about yesterday, when you think about it, 80 deaths a day, 8,000 deaths or more since Newtown alone. Shootings in America are becoming the new normal. The risk is that we accept the banality of this evil in our society. And the one who called it an evil in society is Janis Orlowski, the chief of medicine at the MedStar Washington Medical Center, said shut down my trauma center. That's what we need to do is shut down gun violence. And it will take more than silence, it will take a lot of shouting. That's why you're here. That's why it means so much that you are here, that you are sharing this effort with us. We cannot allow the plethora and epidemic of guns and violence in our society to become the new normal, and we have to resolve to take action.

I'm asked often what has changed. Well, you know, everyone these days is in danger of knowing someone who is a victim of gun violence. More and more people here have friends, loved ones, neighbors, co-workers who have been victims of gun violence. When you think about it, this epidemic is beginning to touch all of our lives. And that is what is changing in our society. That there is a building momentum, a new majority, a bipartisan coalition that will say no to the new normal of gun violence. And we know that the shooter at the Washington Navy Yard was a dangerous person. We know we have to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous people. That's common ground. Keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people should be what we are doing. But we also need to make people less dangerous, to identify people who are dangerous, to know who may pose a threat and to diagnose and treat and deal with those mental health issues that make them dangerous. Mental health issues offer a centerpiece for a comprehensive gun violence prevention program that involves background checks and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines. Mental health initiatives can provide us with common ground that we can seize on this day and every day going forward. We have to seize this moment

126 | when public opinion and grassroots organizations can mobilize the overwhelming majority of Americans who believe common sense measures against gun violence are not just a luxury or an opportunity, they are an obligation that we need to take right now. Thank you.

[ applause ]

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shooting (in general and in specific: Washington Navy Yard shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary shooting)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that there is a new normal of gun violence that cannot be accepted. Commissive: No. Expressive: Expressing e.g. grief, courage, danger. Directive: Yes, e.g. inviting to seize this moment. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “I thought about yesterday, when you think about it, 80 deaths a day, 8,000 deaths or more since Newtown alone. Shootings in America are becoming the new normal.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “And we know that the shooter at the Washington Navy Yard was a dangerous person.” - demonising offender(s); creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Metaphors “She will continue to live in every one of these victims. We need to make sure every one of them lives, that we keep faith with them, and that we resolve, as leader Pelosi said so beautifully, that we have not just a moment of silence, not just a day of silence and not just a day of action.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “We cannot allow the plethora and epidemic of guns and violence in our society to become the new normal, and we have to resolve to take action.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “And that is what is changing in our society. That there is a building momentum, a new majority, a bipartisan coalition that will say no to the new normal of gun violence.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration “We know… …going forward.” - showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Analogies “The risk is that we accept the banality of this evil in our society. And the one who called it an evil in society is Janis Orlowski, the chief of medicine at the MedStar Washington 127 |

Medical Center, said shut down my trauma center. That's what we need to do is shut down gun violence.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; scare the audience; emphasizing frustration Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “Let me, first of all, thank all of the loved ones of the victims who are here for your courage and your resolve and your strength in once again sharing your grief and your personal story, knowing how difficult it is for you as it is for Carlos to be here and Vicki lighted a lot of lives as a teacher, a person, and having been to her funeral and seeing the outpouring of love for her.“ – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “Well, you know, everyone these days is in danger of knowing someone who is a victim of gun violence. More and more people here have friends, loved ones, neighbors, co-workers who have been victims of gun violence. When you think about it, this epidemic is beginning to touch all of our lives.” - scare the audience; evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting/creating a community Interactions “Let me, first of all, thank all of the loved ones of the victims who are here for your courage and your resolve and your strength in once again sharing your grief and your personal story, knowing how difficult it is for you as it is for Carlos to be here and Vicki lighted a lot of lives as a teacher, a person, and having been to her funeral and seeing the outpouring of love for her.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

128 |

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the second text of the second unit of analysis. This speech is held at the same event as the speech delivered by Rep. Pelosi. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: The text refers and reacts directly to some of the words in the speech of Rep. Pelosi that not a moment of silence is need, but a day of action and even more. Sen. Blumenthal also refers to the content of the AWB and the Manchin-Toomey Amendment as important and necessary changes and progression in the gun legislation to keep guns out of the hands of, for instance, mentally unstable people. References to own texts: none

129 |

Unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013) Securitizing actor: President Obama (D), gun control advocate Date: September 22, 2013 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual dinner Source: Jackson, D., and Kennedy, K. (2013, September 22). Obama calls for ‘transformation’ of nation’s gun laws. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/09/22/navy-shooting-spree-memorial- service-obama/2849165/.

We can’t rest until all our children can go to school or walk down the street free from the fear that they will be struck down by a stray bullet.

Just two days ago, in my hometown Chicago, thirteen people were shot during a pickup basketball game, including a three-year-old girl. Tomorrow night I’ll be meeting and mourning with families in this city.

For now I know the same unspeakable grief in Newtown and Aurora and Tucson and Chicago and New Orleans and all across the country people whose loved ones were torn from them without headlines sometimes or public outcry. But it’s happening every single day.

We fought a good fight earlier this year, but we came up short. And that means we got to get back up and go back at it, because as long as there are those whose fights are making it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns, then we have to work as hard as possible, for the sake of our children, we have got to be the ones who are willing to do more work to make it harder.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: Washington Navy Yard shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting, 2011 Tucson shooting and mass shootings in Chicago and New Orleans)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. cannot rest till all children can go to school without fearing for bullets. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, expressing e.g. unspeakable grief. Directive: Yes, inviting to be the ones who are willing to fight for gun control. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “Just two days ago, in my hometown Chicago, thirteen people were shot during a pickup basketball game, including a three-year-old girl. Tomorrow night I’ll be meeting and mourning with families in this city.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims

130 |

“For now I know the same unspeakable grief in Newtown and Aurora and Tucson and Chicago and New Orleans and all across the country people whose loved ones were torn from them without headlines sometimes or public outcry. But it’s happening every single day.” - emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; remembrance Metaphors “(…) because as long as there are those whose fights are making it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns, then we have to work as hard as possible, for the sake of our children” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration; creating an outgroup (in this case not perpetrators, but the anti-gun legislation politicians) Analogies none Emotions “For now I know the same unspeakable grief in Newtown and Aurora and Tucson and Chicago and New Orleans and all across the country people whose loved ones were torn from them without headlines sometimes or public outcry. But it’s happening every single day.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “We can’t rest until all our children can go to school or walk down the street free from the fear that they will be struck down by a stray bullet.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; evoke emotional reaction; appealing to existent community Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event 131 |

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the fourth text of the second unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: He generally refers to all the text efforts by gun rights advocates, ‘whose fights are making it as easy as possible for dangerous people to get their hands on guns’. References to own texts: none

132 |

Unit of analysis: Washington Navy Yard shooting (September 16, 2013) Securitizing actor: President Obama (D), gun control advocate Date: September 23, 2013 Type of act: Memorial speech Location/means of communication: Memorial service to honour victims of the Navy Yard shooting Source: Slack, M. (2013, September 23). President Obama on the Navy Yard Shooting: “We Can’t Accept This”. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2013/09/23/president-obama-memorial-service- victims-navy-yard-shooting-we-can-t-accept.

THE PRESIDENT: Secretary Hagel, Secretary Mabus, Admirals Greenert and Hilarides, Mayor Gray, leaders from across this city and our Armed Forces, to all the outstanding first responders, and, most of all, the families whose hearts have been broken -- we cannot begin to comprehend your loss. We know that no words we offer today are equal to the magnitude, to the depths of that loss. But we come together as a grateful nation to honor your loved ones, to grieve with you, and to offer, as best we can, some solace and comfort.

On the night that we lost Martin Luther King Jr. to a gunman’s bullet, Robert Kennedy stood before a stunned and angry crowd in Indianapolis and he broke the terrible news. And in the anguish of that moment, he turned to the words of an ancient Greek poet, Aeschylus: “Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart until, in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.” Pain which cannot forget -- drop by drop upon the heart.

The tragedy and the pain that brings us here today is extraordinary. It is unique. The lives that were taken from us were unique. The memories their loved ones carry are unique, and they will carry them and endure long after the news cameras are gone. But part of what wears on as well is the sense that this has happened before. Part of what wears on us, what troubles us so deeply as we gather here today, is how this senseless violence that took place in the Navy Yard echoes other recent tragedies.

As President, I have now grieved with five American communities ripped apart by mass violence. Fort Hood. Tucson. Aurora. Sandy Hook. And now, the Washington Navy Yard. And these mass shootings occur against a backdrop of daily tragedies, as an epidemic of gun violence tears apart communities across America -- from the streets of Chicago to neighborhoods not far from here.

And so, once again, we remember our fellow Americans who were just going about their day doing their jobs, doing what they loved -- in this case, the unheralded work that keeps

133 | our country strong and our Navy the finest fleet in the world. These patriots doing their work that they were so proud of, and who have now been taken away from us by unspeakable violence.

Once more we come together to mourn the lives of beauty and to comfort the wonderful families who cherished them. Once more we pay tribute to all who rushed towards the danger, who risked their lives so others might live, and who are in our prayers today, including Officer Scott Williams. Once more our hearts are broken. Once more we ask why. Once more we seek strength and wisdom through God's grace.

You and your families, this Navy family, are still in the early hour of your grief. And I'm here today to say that there is nothing routine about this tragedy. There is nothing routine about your loss. Your loved ones will not be forgotten. They will endure in the hearts of the American people and in the hearts of the Navy that they helped to keep strong, and the hearts of their coworkers and their friends and their neighbors.

“I want them to know how she lived,” Jessica Gaarde said of her mother Kathy. “She is not a number, or some statistic.” None of these 12 fellow Americans are statistics. Today, I want every American to see how these men and women lived. You may have never met them, but you know them. They're your neighbors -- like Arthur Daniels, out there on the weekend, polishing his white Crown Victoria; and Kenneth Proctor, with his beloved yellow Mustang, who, if you asked, would fix your car, too.

She was the friendly face at the store. Sylvia Frasier, with her unforgettable gold hair, who took a second job at Walmart because, she said, she just loved working with people. She was the diehard fan you sat next to at the game. Kathy Gaarde loved her hockey and her Caps, a season ticket holder for 25 years.

They were the volunteers who made your community better. Frank Kohler, giving dictionaries to every third-grader in his county; Marty Bodrog, leading the children’s Bible study at church. They lived the American Dream -- like Kisan Pandit, who left everything he knew in India for this land of opportunity, and raised a wonderful family and dedicated himself to the United States Navy. They were proud veterans -- like Gerald Read, who wore the Army uniform for more than 25 years; and Michael Arnold, who became one of the Navy’s leading architects, of whom a colleague said, “nobody knew those ships like him.”

They were dedicated fathers -- like Mike Ridgell, coaching his daughter’s softball teams, joining Facebook just to keep up with his girls, one of whom said, “he was always the cool

134 | dad.” They were loving mothers -- like Mary Francis Knight, devoted to her daughters, and who had just recently watched with joy as her older daughter got married. They were doting grandparents -- like John Johnson, always smiling, giving bear hugs to his 10 grandchildren, and who would have welcomed his 11th grandchild this fall.

These are not statistics. They are the lives that have been taken from us. This is how far a single act of violence can ripple. A husband has lost his wife. Wives have lost their husbands. Sons and daughters have lost their moms and their dads. Little children have lost their grandparents. Hundreds in our communities have lost a neighbor, and thousands here have lost a friend.

As has been mentioned, for one family, the Daniels family, old wounds are ripped open again. Priscilla has lost Arthur, her husband of 30 years. Only a few years ago, as Mayor Gray indicated, another shooting took the life of their son, just 14 years old. “I can’t believe this is happening again,” Priscilla says.

So these families have endured a shattering tragedy. It ought to be a shock to us all as a nation and as a people. It ought to obsess us. It ought to lead to some sort of transformation. That’s what happened in other countries when they experienced similar tragedies. In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries, they understood that there was nothing ordinary about this kind of carnage. They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed, and mass shootings became a great rarity.

And yet, here in the United States, after the round-of-clock coverage on cable news, after the heartbreaking interviews with families, after all the speeches and all the punditry and all the commentary, nothing happens. Alongside the anguish of these American families, alongside the accumulated outrage so many of us feel, sometimes I fear there’s a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is, that this is somehow the new normal.

We can’t accept this. As Americans bound in grief and love, we must insist here today there is nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work. There is nothing normal about our children being gunned down in their classrooms. There is nothing normal about children dying in our streets from stray bullets.

No other advanced nation endures this kind of violence -- none. Here in America, the murder rate is three times what it is in other developed nations. The murder rate with guns is

135 | ten times what it is in other developed nations. And there is nothing inevitable about it. It comes about because of decisions we make or fail to make. And it falls upon us to make it different.

Sometimes it takes an unexpected voice to break through, to help remind us what we know to be true. And we heard one of those voices last week. Dr. Janis Orlowski’s team at Medstar Washington Hospital Center treated the wounded. And in the midst of one of her briefings, she spoke with heartbreaking honesty as somebody who sees, daily and nightly, the awful carnage of so much violence. We are a great country, she said, but “there’s something wrong.” All these shootings, all these victims, she said, “this is not America.” “It is a challenge to all of us,” she said, and “we have to work together to get rid of this.”

And that’s the wisdom we should be taking away from this tragedy and so many others -- not accepting these shootings as inevitable, but asking what can we do to prevent them from happening again and again and again. I've said before, we cannot stop every act of senseless violence. We cannot know every evil that lurks in troubled minds. But if we can prevent even one tragedy like this, save even one life, spare other families what these families are going through, surely we've got an obligation to try.

It's true that each of the tragedies I've mentioned is different. And in this case, it's clear we need to do a better job of securing our military facilities and deciding who gets access to them. And as Commander in Chief, I have ordered a review of procedures up and down the chain, and I know that Secretary Hagel is moving aggressively on that. As a society, it’s clear we've got to do a better job of ensuring that those who need mental health care actually get it, and that in those efforts we don't stigmatize those who need help. Those things are clear, and we've got to move to address them.

But we Americans are not an inherently more violent people than folks in other countries. We're not inherently more prone to mental health problems. The main difference that sets our nation apart, what makes us so susceptible to so many mass shootings, is that we don’t do enough -- we don’t take the basic, common-sense actions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people. What's different in America is it's easy to get your hands on gun -- and a lot of us know this. But the politics are difficult, as we saw again this spring. And that’s sometimes where the resignation comes from -- the sense that our politics are frozen and that nothing will change.

Well, I cannot accept that. I do not accept that we cannot find a common-sense way to preserve our traditions, including our basic Second Amendment freedoms and the rights of

136 | law-abiding gun owners, while at the same time reducing the gun violence that unleashes so much mayhem on a regular basis. And it may not happen tomorrow and it may not happen next week, it may not happen next month -- but it will happen. Because it's the change that we need, and it's a change overwhelmingly supported by the majority of Americans.

By now, though, it should be clear that the change we need will not come from Washington, even when tragedy strikes Washington. Change will come the only way it ever has come, and that’s from the American people. So the question now is not whether, as Americans, we care in moments of tragedy. Clearly, we care. Our hearts are broken -- again. And we care so deeply about these families. But the question is, do we care enough?

Do we care enough to keep standing up for the country that we know is possible, even if it’s hard, and even if it’s politically uncomfortable? Do we care enough to sustain the passion and the pressure to make our communities safer and our country safer? Do we care enough to do everything we can to spare other families the pain that is felt here today?

Our tears are not enough. Our words and our prayers are not enough. If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work, and go to school, and walk our streets free from senseless violence, without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we're going to have to change. We're going to have to change.

On Monday morning, these 12 men and women woke up like they did every day. They left home and they headed off to work. Gerald Read’s wife Cathy said, “See you tonight for dinner.” And John Johnson looked at his wife Judy and said what he always said whenever they parted, “Goodbye beautiful. I love you so much."

“Even in our sleep, pain which cannot forget falls drop by drop upon the heart, until in our own despair, against our will, comes wisdom through the awful grace of God.”

What Robert Kennedy understood, what Dr. King understood, what all our great leaders have always understood, is that wisdom does not come from tragedy alone or from some sense of resignation in the fallibility of man. Wisdom comes through the recognition that tragedies such as this are not inevitable, and that we possess the ability to act and to change, and to spare others the pain that drops upon our hearts. So in our grief, let us seek that grace. Let us find that wisdom. And in doing so, let us truly honor these 12 American patriots.

137 |

May God hold close the souls taken from us and grant them eternal peace. May He comfort and watch over these families. And may God grant us the strength and the wisdom to keep safe our United States of America.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: Washington Navy Yard shooting) and the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Commissive: Expressive: Directive: Declarative:

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “On the night that we lost Martin Luther King Jr. to a gunman’s bullet, , Robert Kennedy stood before a stunned and angry crowd in Indianapolis and he broke the terrible news.” – evoke emotional reaction; appealing to existent community; uniting; remembrance “Part of what wears on us, what troubles us so deeply as we gather here today, is how this senseless violence that took place in the Navy Yard echoes other recent tragedies.” - emphasizing frustration; evoke anger; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “As President, I have now grieved with five American communities ripped apart by mass violence. Fort Hood. Tucson. Aurora. Sandy Hook. And now, the Washington Navy Yard. And these mass shootings occur against a backdrop of daily tragedies, as an epidemic of gun violence tears apart communities across America -- from the streets of Chicago to neighborhoods not far from here.” – emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “And so, once again, we remember our fellow Americans who were just going about their day doing their jobs, doing what they loved -- in this case, the unheralded work that keeps our country strong and our Navy the finest fleet in the world. These patriots doing their work that they were so proud of, and who have now been taken away from us by unspeakable violence.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “That’s what happened in other countries when they experienced similar tragedies. In the United Kingdom, in Australia, when just a single mass shooting occurred in those countries, they understood that there was nothing ordinary about this kind of carnage. They endured great heartbreak, but they also mobilized and they changed, and mass shootings became a great rarity.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective; emphasizing abnormality of event “Dr. Janis Orlowski’s team at Medstar Washington Hospital Center treated the wounded.” – remembrance

138 |

“And that’s the wisdom we should be taking away from this tragedy and so many others -- not accepting these shootings as inevitable, but asking what can we do to prevent them from happening again and again and again.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “The main difference that sets our nation apart, what makes us so susceptible to so many mass shootings, is that we don’t do enough -- we don’t take the basic, common-sense actions to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and dangerous people.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective; emphasizing frustration; appealing to existent community; showing vulnerability “On Monday morning, these 12 men and women woke up like they did every day. They left home and they headed off to work. Gerald Read’s wife Cathy said, “See you tonight for dinner.” And John Johnson looked at his wife Judy and said what he always said whenever they parted, “Goodbye beautiful. I love you so much."” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “And in doing so, let us truly honor these 12 American patriots.” - appealing to existent community; remembrance Metaphors “The lives that were taken from us were unique. The memories their loved ones carry are unique, and they will carry them and endure long after the news cameras are gone. But part of what wears on as well is the sense that this has happened before. Part of what wears on us, what troubles us so deeply as we gather here today, is how this senseless violence that took place in the Navy Yard echoes other recent tragedies.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “And yet, here in the United States, after the round-of-clock coverage on cable news, after the heartbreaking interviews with families, after all the speeches and all the punditry and all the commentary, nothing happens.” – evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing frustration; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “No other advanced nation endures this kind of violence -- none. Here in America, the murder rate is three times what it is in other developed nations. The murder rate with guns is ten times what it is in other developed nations. And there is nothing inevitable about it. It comes about because of decisions we make or fail to make. And it falls upon us to make it different.” – showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing abnormality of event; showing vulnerability “It's true that each of the tragedies I've mentioned is different. And in this case, it's clear we need to do a better job of securing our military facilities and deciding who gets access to them. And as Commander in Chief, I have ordered a review of procedures up and down the chain, and I know that Secretary Hagel is moving aggressively on that.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “I do not accept that we cannot find a common-sense way to preserve our traditions, including our basic Second Amendment freedoms and the rights of law-abiding gun owners, while at the same time reducing the gun violence that unleashes so much 139 | mayhem on a regular basis.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “By now, though, it should be clear that the change we need will not come from Washington, even when tragedy strikes Washington.” – emphasizing frustration “What Robert Kennedy understood, what Dr. King understood, (…)” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “Wisdom comes through the recognition that tragedies such as this are not inevitable, and that we possess the ability to act and to change, and to spare others the pain that drops upon our hearts.” – showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective “May God hold close the souls taken from us and grant them eternal peace. May He comfort and watch over these families. And may God grant us the strength and the wisdom to keep safe our United States of America.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims Analogies none Emotions “The tragedy and the pain that brings us here today is extraordinary. It is unique.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing abnormality of event; uniting “You and your families, this Navy family, are still in the early hour of your grief.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “So these families have endured a shattering tragedy.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims “And in the midst of one of her briefings, she spoke with heartbreaking honesty as somebody who sees, daily and nightly, the awful carnage of so much violence. We are a great country, she said, but “there’s something wrong.” All these shootings, all these victims, she said, “this is not America.” “It is a challenge to all of us,” she said, and “we have to work together to get rid of this.”” – evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; uniting/creating a community; appealing to existent community; emphasizing frustration; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “So the question now is not whether, as Americans, we care in moments of tragedy. Clearly, we care. Our hearts are broken -- again. And we care so deeply about these families. But the question is, do we care enough?” – evoke emotional reaction “(…) and to spare others the pain that drops upon our hearts. So in our grief, let us seek that grace. Let us find that wisdom.” - evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting Stereotypes ““She is not a number, or some statistic.” None of these 12 fellow Americans are statistics.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance; emphasizing abnormality of event “These are not statistics.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance; emphasizing abnormality of event “But we Americans are not an inherently more violent people than folks in other countries. We're not inherently more prone to mental health problems.” - showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests

140 |

“Once more we come together to mourn the lives of beauty and to comfort the wonderful families who cherished them. Once more we pay tribute to all who rushed towards the danger, who risked their lives so others might live, and who are in our prayers today, including Officer Scott Williams. Once more our hearts are broken. Once more we ask why. Once more we seek strength and wisdom through God's grace.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “They are the lives that have been taken from us. This is how far a single act of violence can ripple. A husband has lost his wife. Wives have lost their husbands. Sons and daughters have lost their moms and their dads. Little children have lost their grandparents. Hundreds in our communities have lost a neighbor, and thousands here have lost a friend.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; uniting “It ought to be a shock to us all as a nation and as a people. It ought to obsess us. It ought to lead to some sort of transformation.” – evoke emotional reaction; uniting/creating a community; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “Alongside the anguish of these American families, alongside the accumulated outrage so many of us feel, sometimes I fear there’s a creeping resignation that these tragedies are just somehow the way it is, that this is somehow the new normal.” – emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; evoke anger; emphasizing frustration “As Americans bound in grief and love, we must insist here today there is nothing normal about innocent men and women being gunned down where they work. There is nothing normal about our children being gunned down in their classrooms. There is nothing normal about children dying in our streets from stray bullets.” – emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “As a society, it’s clear we've got to do a better job of ensuring that those who need mental health care actually get it, and that in those efforts we don't stigmatize those who need help. Those things are clear, and we've got to move to address them.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “So the question now is not whether, as Americans, we care in moments of tragedy. Clearly, we care. Our hearts are broken -- again. And we care so deeply about these families. But the question is, do we care enough?” - evoke emotional reaction; appealing to existent community Interactions “(…) to all the outstanding first responders, and, most of all, the families whose hearts have been broken -- we cannot begin to comprehend your loss. We know that no words we offer today are equal to the magnitude, to the depths of that loss. But we come together as a grateful nation to honor your loved ones, to grieve with you, and to offer, as best we can, some solace and comfort.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “And I'm here today to say that there is nothing routine about this tragedy. There is nothing routine about your loss. Your loved ones will not be forgotten. They will

141 | endure in the hearts of the American people and in the hearts of the Navy that they helped to keep strong, and the hearts of their coworkers and their friends and their neighbors.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing abnormality of event ““I want…… ……this fall” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance; appealing to existent community “As has been mentioned, for one family, the Daniels family, old wounds are ripped open again. Priscilla has lost Arthur, her husband of 30 years. Only a few years ago, as Mayor Gray indicated, another shooting took the life of their son, just 14 years old. “I can’t believe this is happening again,” Priscilla says.” – evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; showing vulnerability “I've said before, we cannot stop every act of senseless violence. We cannot know every evil that lurks in troubled minds. But if we can prevent even one tragedy like this, save even one life, spare other families what these families are going through, surely we've got an obligation to try.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “So the question now is not whether, as Americans, we care in moments of tragedy. Clearly, we care. Our hearts are broken -- again. And we care so deeply about these families. But the question is, do we care enough?” – evoke emotional reaction; appealing to existent community “Do we care enough to do everything we can to spare other families the pain that is felt here today?” – evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “Our tears are not enough. Our words and our prayers are not enough. If we really want to honor these 12 men and women, if we really want to be a country where we can go to work, and go to school, and walk our streets free from senseless violence, without so many lives being stolen by a bullet from a gun, then we're going to have to change. We're going to have to change.” – evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community

142 | emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the last text of the second unit of analysis. It is the third speech act of President Obama that is included in this research. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Although, Obama does not directly refers to texts of other actors, he does mention the sense or fear of these acts of mass violence becoming the new normal just as Sen. Blumenthal expressed. References to own texts: Referred to earlier texts of him in the first unit of analysis where he stated that action and new legislation cannot stop every tragedy, not every act of violence can be prevented. But, this is no reason for not even trying.

143 |

C. Texts of the third unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015)

Unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015) Securitizing actor: President Obama (D), gun control advocate Date: June 18, 2015 Type of act: Press statement Location/means of communication: White House Source: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2015, June 18). Statement by the President on the Shooting in Charleston, South Carolina. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/06/18/statement-president-shooting- charleston-south-carolina.

THE PRESIDENT: Good afternoon, everybody. This morning, I spoke with, and Vice President Biden spoke with, Mayor Joe Riley and other leaders of Charleston to express our deep sorrow over the senseless murders that took place last night.

Michelle and I know several members of Emanuel AME Church. We knew their pastor, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who, along with eight others, gathered in prayer and fellowship and was murdered last night. And to say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families, and their community doesn’t say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel.

Any death of this sort is a tragedy. Any shooting involving multiple victims is a tragedy. There is something particularly heartbreaking about the death happening in a place in which we seek solace and we seek peace, in a place of worship.

Mother Emanuel is, in fact, more than a church. This is a place of worship that was founded by African Americans seeking liberty. This is a church that was burned to the ground because its worshipers worked to end slavery. When there were laws banning all-black church gatherings, they conducted services in secret. When there was a nonviolent movement to bring our country closer in line with our highest ideals, some of our brightest leaders spoke and led marches from this church’s steps. This is a sacred place in the history of Charleston and in the history of America.

The FBI is now on the scene with local police, and more of the Bureau’s best are on the way to join them. The Attorney General has announced plans for the FBI to open a hate crime investigation. We understand that the suspect is in custody. And I’ll let the best of law enforcement do its work to make sure that justice is served.

Until the investigation is complete, I’m necessarily constrained in terms of talking about the details of the case. But I don’t need to be constrained about the emotions that tragedies like this raise. I’ve had to make statements like this too many times. Communities like this have

144 | had to endure tragedies like this too many times. We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun. Now is the time for mourning and for healing.

But let’s be clear: At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it. I say that recognizing the politics in this town foreclose a lot of those avenues right now. But it would be wrong for us not to acknowledge it. And at some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.

The fact that this took place in a black church obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history. This is not the first time that black churches have been attacked. And we know that hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals.

The good news is I am confident that the outpouring of unity and strength and fellowship and love across Charleston today, from all races, from all faiths, from all places of worship indicates the degree to which those old vestiges of hatred can be overcome. That, certainly, was Dr. King’s hope just over 50 years ago, after four little girls were killed in a bombing in a black church in Birmingham, Alabama.

He said they lived meaningful lives, and they died nobly. “They say to each of us,” Dr. King said, “black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution. They say to us that we must be concerned not merely with [about] who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American Dream.

“And if one will hold on, he will discover that God walks with him, and that God is able to lift you from the fatigue of despair to the buoyancy of hope, and transform dark and desolate valleys into sunlit paths of inner peace.”

Reverend Pinckney and his congregation understood that spirit. Their Christian faith compelled them to reach out not just to members of their congregation, or to members of their own communities, but to all in need. They opened their doors to strangers who might enter a church in search of healing or redemption.

145 |

Mother Emanuel church and its congregation have risen before –- from flames, from an earthquake, from other dark times -– to give hope to generations of Charlestonians. And with our prayers and our love, and the buoyancy of hope, it will rise again now as a place of peace.

Thank you.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: Charleston church shooting), slavery and racial segregation (in general and some specific violent chapters in this part of history like the bombing of a church in Birmingham, Alabama) and radical Islamic terrorism.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. in our power to do something about mass shootings. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, e.g. deep sorrow over the senseless murders in Charleston. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “There is something particularly heartbreaking about the death happening in a place in which we seek solace and we seek peace, in a place of worship.” – evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing abnormality of event “Mother Emanuel is, in fact, more than a church. This is a place of worship that was founded by African Americans seeking liberty. This is a church that was burned to the ground because its worshipers worked to end slavery. When there were laws banning all- black church gatherings, they conducted services in secret. When there was a nonviolent movement to bring our country closer in line with our highest ideals, some of our brightest leaders spoke and led marches from this church’s steps. This is a sacred place in the history of Charleston and in the history of America.” – evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing abnormality of event; remembrance “And we know that hatred across races and faiths pose a particular threat to our democracy and our ideals.” – uniting “The good news is I am confident that the outpouring of unity and strength and fellowship and love across Charleston today, from all races, from all faiths, from all places of worship indicates the degree to which those old vestiges of hatred can be overcome. That, certainly, was Dr. King’s hope just over 50 years ago, after four little girls were killed in a bombing in a black church in Birmingham, Alabama. He said they lived meaningful lives, and they died nobly.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance; uniting; appealing to existent community Metaphors “Any death of this sort is a tragedy. Any shooting involving multiple victims is a tragedy.” – evoke emotional reaction “The Attorney General has announced plans for the FBI to open a hate crime investigation.” – the need to act now; reassuring the audience

146 |

“But I don’t need to be constrained about the emotions that tragedies like this raise. I’ve had to make statements like this too many times. Communities like this have had to endure tragedies like this too many times. We don’t have all the facts, but we do know that, once again, innocent people were killed in part because someone who wanted to inflict harm had no trouble getting their hands on a gun.” – evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “The fact that this took place in a black church obviously also raises questions about a dark part of our history. This is not the first time that black churches have been attacked.” – remembrance ““They say to each of us,” Dr. King said, “black and white alike, that we must substitute courage for caution. They say to us that we must be concerned not merely with [about] who murdered them, but about the system, the way of life, the philosophy which produced the murderers. Their death says to us that we must work passionately and unrelentingly for the realization of the American Dream. “And if one will hold on, he will discover that God walks with him, and that God is able to lift you from the fatigue of despair to the buoyancy of hope, and transform dark and desolate valleys into sunlit paths of inner peace.”” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community; uniting/creating a community “Reverend Pinckney and his congregation understood that spirit. Their Christian faith compelled them to reach out not just to members of their congregation, or to members of their own communities, but to all in need. They opened their doors to strangers who might enter a church in search of healing or redemption.” – remembrance; uniting/creating a community “Mother Emanuel church and its congregation have risen before –- from flames, from an earthquake, from other dark times -– to give hope to generations of Charlestonians. And with our prayers and our love, and the buoyancy of hope, it will rise again now as a place of peace.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims Analogies none Emotions “Now is the time for mourning and for healing.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims Stereotypes

Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “Michelle and I know several members of Emanuel AME Church. We knew their pastor, Reverend Clementa Pinckney, who, along with eight others, gathered in prayer and fellowship and was murdered last night.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims “And to say our thoughts and prayers are with them and their families, and their community doesn’t say enough to convey the heartache and the sadness and the anger that we feel. “ – evoke anger; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction Interactions “This morning, I spoke with, and Vice President Biden spoke with, Mayor Joe Riley and other leaders of Charleston to express our deep sorrow over the senseless murders that 147 | took place last night.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “At some point, we as a country will have to reckon with the fact that this type of mass violence does not happen in other advanced countries. It doesn’t happen in other places with this kind of frequency. And it is in our power to do something about it.” – emphasizing abnormality of event; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “And at some point it’s going to be important for the American people to come to grips with it, and for us to be able to shift how we think about the issue of gun violence collectively.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the first text of the third unit of analysis and the fourth text of President Obama in total. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: He refers to his previous memorial speech in this research at the Washington Navy Yard, where he stated that these mass shooting do not happen on the same scale and with the same frequency as in America. A use of the same argument to emphasize the abnormality of these events.

148 |

Unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015) Securitizing actor: Hillary Clinton (D), gun control advocate Date: June 20, 2015 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: 2015 United States Conference of Mayors Source: ABC News. (2015, June 20). In Charleston’s Wake, Hillary Clinton Vows to Fight for Gun Control. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/video/charlestons-wake- hillary-clinton-vows-fight-gun-control-31914267.

CLINTON: You know the passing of days has not dulled the pain or the shock of this crime. Indeed, as we have gotten to know the faces and names and stories of the victims, the pain has only deepened.

For me and many others one immediate response was to ask how it could be possible that we as a nation still allow guns to fall in the hands of people whose hearts are filled with hate. You can’t watch massacre after massacre and not come to the conclusion that, as President Obama said, we must tackle this challenge with urgency and conviction, despite overwhelming public support.

It makes no sense that we couldn’t come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers or people suffering from mental illnesses, even people on the terrorist watch list. That doesn’t make sense and it is a rebuke to this nation we love and care about.

The President is right. The politics on this issue have been poisoned. But, we can’t give up. The stakes are too high, the costs are too dear.

And I am not and will not be afraid to keep fighting for common sense reforms and along with you achieve those on behalf of all who have been lost because of this senseless gun violence in our country.

ANALYSIS Use of trauma(s): mass shootings (in general and in specific: Charleston Church shooting), domestic terrorism

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: yes, e.g. belief that time of watching is over and challenge has to be tackled. E.g. belief that politics have been poisoned on this issue. Commissive: yes, Clinton states that she keeps fighting for common sense reforms. Expressive: yes, various expressions of the psychological state, e.g. pain, shock, love. Directive: yes, Clinton invites (“along with you”) the audience to keep fighting with her. Declarative: no.

Direct mentioning/wordings none Metaphors

149 |

“You can’t watch massacre after massacre and not come to the conclusion that, as President Obama said, we must tackle this challenge with urgency and conviction, despite overwhelming public support.” - creating sense of urgency/ the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “It makes no sense that we couldn’t come together to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers or people suffering from mental illnesses, even people on the terrorist watch list.” - creating an outgroup; showing vulnerability; emphasizing frustration “The stakes are too high, the costs are too dear.” - creating sense of urgency/ the need to act now “(…) to keep fighting for common sense reforms and along with you achieve those on behalf of all who have been lost because of this senseless gun violence in our country.” - need for new gun legislation or regulation; evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; emphasizing frustration Analogies none Emotions “(…) the passing of days has not dulled the pain or the shock of this crime.” - evoke emotional reaction “(…) as we have gotten to know the faces and names and stories of the victims, the pain has only deepened.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “(…) how it could be possible that we as a nation still allow guns to fall in the hands of people whose hearts are filled with hate.” - demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup; emphasizing frustration “(…) a rebuke to this nation we love and care about.” - appealing to existent community Interactions “(…) to keep fighting for common sense reforms and along with you achieve those on behalf of all who have been lost because of this senseless gun violence in our country.” – uniting; appealing to an existent community

Function of the use of trauma(s) (bold and green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/ the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon (second amendment) rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event 150 | emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the third text of the third unit of analysis and the second text of Hillary Clinton in the case. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: She refers multiple times to earlier statements by President Obama that are also part of his earlier texts. He states that this challenge must be tackled with urgency and conviction and that politics on the subject of guns are poisoned. References to own texts: none

151 |

Unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Christopher Church (D), gun control advocate Date: June 24, 2015 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Senate floor Source: U.S. Senate. (2015, June 24). Senator Christopher Church on Gun Legislation. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?326775-5/senator-christopher-murphy- dct-gun-legislation.

Thank you, Mr. President. We had a wonderful event last night here in Washington, that I was able to attend. It was a night honoring champions for anti-gun violence measures across the country, it was put on by Sandy Hook Promise, an organization that has grown up out of the tragedy in Sandy Hook. A number of parents have become the organizers of an effort to try to learn from what happened in Sandy Hook and make sure that we do not repeat the mistakes of the past. We, actually, got to honor two of our colleagues there. We honored senator Pat Toomey for his work two years ago on the background checks bill as well as Debbie Stebenow, of course, has been a great advocate for increasing resources in our mental health system. And as wonderful as it was to honor these champions of change, it was also a night in which we were reminded about that terrible, terrible morning in December 2012. We watched a short video of the news coverage and listened to the parents of Daniel Barden and Dylan Hockley, the husband of Mary Sherlock talked to us about what their lives have been like in the years since the shooting in Sandy Hook.

I remember the hours and days after the shooting, I remember feeling like I needed to be restrained about talking about the obvious policy issues to me that were due for airing, that sort of tumbled out of the facts surrounding that tragedy. I mean, this kid, this really troubled young man walked into a school with a semi-automatic weapon, that is designed for the military, and shot 20 kids in less than five minutes. The gun designed for the military, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, killed every single kid it hit. There were twenty kids shot and 20 kids were dead in a matter of minutes.

So, it seemed obvious to me that we should have an immediate discussion about why this kind of gun is still legal. But I held back, because it felt like the mourning and the grieving should take precedence over the action. It took me only up to the first wake that I attended to realize that I was wrong. Senator Blumenthal and I went to every single wake and every funeral that we could over the course of the first week. At the first, I remember waiting in a really long line, standing next to senator Blumenthal, and I remember, like it was yesterday, talking to a sobbing mother, who was standing in front of us in that long line, telling us about how her child survived the shooting only because she had been sick that day and she stayed home from school. But, all her daughter's friends were dead. And as we approached that family I remember struggling with what to say and I’m lucky that my senior senator, who sits behind me in the chamber, had the right words ready. He said to the parents something like, if you are ever ready or willing to talk about how we make sure that this doesn't happen again, we will be waiting. The dad did not pause for more than a few seconds before he said, clear as day, were ready now.

152 |

In the years since these mass shootings have become as commonplace as rainstorms. Since 2011, the number of mass shootings in the United States has tripled. And after each one the forces of the status quo, the defenders of the gun industry, tell us that we cannot talk about policy reform in the days after a shooting. One prominent commentator called those of us who dare talk about change in the wake of Charleston sick. How convenient that at the moment when the world is watching, when the country is asking themselves what we can do to make sure that another mass slaughter does not happen again, the rules say that we can't say word. Think about how these rules would work. Because Charleston happens ten times over every single day across this country. Eighty-six people die on average every day because of guns. Now last Thursday, the families of Clementa Pinckney, Cynthia Hurd, Tywanza Sanders, Sharonda Singleton, Myra Thompson, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Daniel Simmons, Sr., and DePayne Middleton-Doctor, they mourned their loved ones lost in Charleston. But, the day before on Wednesday, the families of Angel Feliciano and Malik Mercer and Eric Ferguson and Michael Kidd, Jr., and Thomas Whitaker and Roy Brown and Martese Gentry and Keith Battle and Ronald Collins mourned their loss. And those were just nine. There were dozens more on Wednesday, the day before, who were killed by guns.

If you can't talk about anti-gun violence policy the day after a large number of Americans are shot, then you will never talk about anti-gun violence policy, because on average 86 people die from gun violence every single day. But even if you accept that there is never a bad time that we can talk about how we can end this carnage, then we also have to have the courage to take on all of the other ridiculous arguments about why we can't act. The first one is familiar. It comes out right after the mass shooting happens and it was a former NRA board member, that trotted this one out within hours after Charleston. He said that the solution was to arm more pastors and parishioners in churches, so that they can defend themselves. The more people that have guns, the less people will die from guns, goes this logic. So don't act. The problem with that argument, that is a simple argument that more good guys with guns equals less gun deaths, the problem with that argument is that it is a boldfaced lie. Study after study show that the more guns in a community, the more crime there is. The more guns, the more gun homicides. New evidence makes the case even clear. As states more clearly separate between those with lax gun laws and those who stricter gun laws, we can look and see what happens.

The second argument is that, one I have heard from our republican colleagues in the senate, that these laws can't stop a madman like Dylann Roof or Adam Lanza from perpetrating violence. So my colleagues say the only recourse is to close your eyes and pray that it doesn’t happen again. But again these facts betray that argument. As I said, now that we have states with loose and states that have tougher gun laws we can see what happens. Over and over again research shows us that jurisdictions that make it a little bit harder for bad guys to get guns, have less gun deaths. In my state of Connecticut, Johns Hopkins concluded that our permit to carry law have reduced gun crime by 40 percent. Similarly, they concluded that in Missouri the repeal of similar laws increased gun homicides by 25%. Both studies controlled for all of the other possible factors influencing gun crimes and still found these shocking results. And while the facts are still fresh out of Charleston, there is evidence that a different set of laws could have, not would have, could have stopped Dylann Roof, without having any effect on law- abiding gun owners in South Carolina. Roof had charges pending for trespassing and drug crimes. Now alone neither would have disqualified him from owning a gun. But what if our laws were different, so that multiple misdemeanours, a pattern of criminal behavior disqualified 153 | you from buying a firearm. Or what about a permit to carry law. Maybe local law enforcement knew enough about Roof, his criminal past or association with extremist right-wing organizations, to know that he shouldn't carry weapon. Maybe not. But if South Carolina had a permit to carry law at least there would have been a chance that law enforcement would have withheld a permit from a young man as plainly unstable as Roof.

But even if you don't believe that any specific law could have prevented the tragedy in Charleston or in Newtown. I'm not sure it matters. Because, separate and aside from the specific case-by-case impact of any law is the collective moral and psychological effect of non-action. No matter how maligned Congress becomes we still set the moral tone for the nation when we declare something to be morally out of bound, especially when we do it in a bipartisan or non- partisan manner, Americans listen. They take cues from our endorsements and from our operations. That is why in my heart I believe that our silence has made us complicit in these murders. I don't care that an assault weapons ban or universal background check maybe would not have stopped the slaughter in Charleston. When we do nothing, year after year, our silence sends a silent message of endorsement to the killers. I'm not saying we’re in conscious alignment with these assassins, but when all we do in the wake of Newtown and Tucson and Aurora and Charleston is rhetorical, then those on the fringe, those hanging on the edge of reason, those contemplating the unthinkable take a cue that we don't really mean it when we condemn mass violence.

Because if we did we would, at the very least, try to do something, anything to stop it, and we don't. And quite frankly Mr. President, removing one flag from one building in South Carolina does not cut it. Neither does a handful of retailers ceasing to sell confederate flag paraphernalia. Don’t get me wrong, I actually think that the tidal wave of sentiment to remove the last vestiges of the symbol of slavery and racism is significant. That flag has quietly endorsed conscious and subconscious racism, particularly in the south, but really all across the country for as long as it has perceived to be a mainstream American symbol. And the events of the last few days are also important because it shows that people of all political stripes, conservatives and liberals, Democrats and Republicans, have been so emotionally moved by the shooting in Charleston that they were inspired to some sort of action. That matters. But removing the Confederate flag is a necessary but totally completely insufficient response to Charleston. Taking down a flag from a building is a pretty easy give back. Deciding to spend billions of dollars to make sure that troubled young men get the help they need for a sickness is harder. So is taking on the gun industry and listening to 90 percent of Americans, who want to make sure that criminals aren’t a continued profit center for the gun makers and sellers. Now, Walmart should be congratulated for ceasing sales of the Confederate flag, but they still advertise an assault weapon online, that even their description concedes that it is designed for the military. And did you know last year that there were at least 92 shootings in Walmarts, sixteen people died in Walmarts, 42 people were injured by guns in Walmarts. Getting rid of the Confederate flag from their shelves is not going to help that unbelievably disturbing trend line. So, we need real action, a real debate, we need real, honest policy to happen here. And no it is not all about guns, it’s about mental health, it’s about law enforcement, it’s about a culture of violence and hate that we have just become immune to. In South Carolina, Reverend Pinckney new something about real action. He supported things like expanded background checks and body cameras for police. Maybe that is because he came from a family of action. His father and grandfather were both pastors who

154 | fought to end white-only political primaries and segregated school busing. He was not just about condemnation. He lived his life to effectuate political change.

And last night, at the Sandy Hook Promise dinner, I chatted with my friend Mark Barden. His son, Daniel, massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary School by a young man wielding a military style assault weapon with cartridges of 30-bullets a piece, would have just finished third grade last week. Mark recalled how special Daniel, how Daniel, just six years old, lived a life of action too. Daniel was that kid who sensed when other children were hurting. His father told me last night how Daniel would see little kids sitting alone at lunch with no one to talk to and Daniel would go over, sit down next to them, make a new friend just because it was the right thing to do. Reverend Pinckney and little Daniel Barden knew the difference between words and actions. They understood that actions are what really count. The US gun homicide rate is 20 times higher than that of our 22 peer nations. Eighty-six people die every day from guns. That is four Sandy Hooks, ten Charlestons every day. Since Sandy Hook there has been a school shooting on average every week. How on earth can we live with ourselves if we do nothing or worse if we don't even try.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shooting (in general and in specific: Charleston church shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2011 Tucson shooting, 2012 Aurora shooting), slavery and racial segregation.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. that silence and inaction has made politics complicit to murder, at least endorsing them. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, expressing various emotions. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “And as wonderful as it was to honor these champions of change, it was also a night in which we were reminded about that terrible, terrible morning in December 2012. We watched a short video of the news coverage and listened to the parents of Daniel Barden and Dylan Hockley, the husband of Mary Sherlock talked to us about what their lives have been like in the years since the shooting in Sandy Hook.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “I mean, this kid, this really troubled young man walked into a school with a semi- automatic weapon, that is designed for the military, and shot 20 kids in less than five minutes. The gun designed for the military, designed to kill as many people as quickly as possible, killed every single kid it hit. There were twenty kids shot and 20 kids were dead in a matter of minutes.” – emphasizing abnormality of event; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “In the years since these mass shootings have become as commonplace as rainstorms. Since 2011, the number of mass shootings in the United States has tripled. And after each one the forces of the status quo, the defenders of the gun industry, tell us that we cannot 155 | talk about policy reform in the days after a shooting. One prominent commentator called those of us who dare talk about change in the wake of Charleston sick.” – emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; emphasizing frustration; creating an outgroup (in this case not perpetrators, but the anti-gun legislation politicians) “Now last Thursday, the families of Clementa Pinckney, Cynthia Hurd, Tywanza Sanders, Sharonda Singleton, Myra Thompson, Ethel Lance, Susie Jackson, Daniel Simmons, Sr., and DePayne Middleton-Doctor, they mourned their loved ones lost in Charleston. But, the day before on Wednesday, the families of Angel Feliciano and Malik Mercer and Eric Ferguson and Michael Kidd, Jr., and Thomas Whitaker and Roy Brown and Martese Gentry and Keith Battle and Ronald Collins mourned their loss. And those were just nine. There were dozens more on Wednesday, the day before, who were killed by guns.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “It comes out right after the mass shooting happens and it was a former NRA board member, that trotted this one out within hours after Charleston. He said that the solution was to arm more pastors and parishioners in churches, so that they can defend themselves.” – creating an outgroup (in this case not perpetrators, but the anti-gun legislation politicians); showing that proposed legislation or regulation is not effective (i.c. arming everyone) “The second argument is that, one I have heard from our republican colleagues in the senate, that these laws can't stop a madman like Dylann Roof or Adam Lanza from perpetrating violence. So my colleagues say the only recourse is to close your eyes and pray that it doesn’t happen again.” – creating an outgroup (in this case not perpetrators, but the anti-gun legislation politicians) “And while…… ……as Roof.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is effective (i.c. gun control) “I don't care that an assault weapons ban or universal background check maybe would not have stopped the slaughter in Charleston.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration “Don’t get me wrong, I actually think that the tidal wave of sentiment to remove the last vestiges of the symbol of slavery and racism is significant.” – evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “(…) have been so emotionally moved by the shooting in Charleston that they were inspired to some sort of action.” – evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting “And did you know last year that there were at least 92 shootings in Walmarts, sixteen people died in Walmarts, 42 people were injured by guns in Walmarts.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “Since Sandy Hook there has been a school shooting on average every week.” - emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events Metaphors “(…) it was put on by Sandy Hook Promise, an organization that has grown up out of the tragedy in Sandy Hook. A number of parents have become the organizers of an effort to try to learn from what happened in Sandy Hook and make sure that we do not repeat the

156 | mistakes of the past.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting/creating a community “How convenient that at the moment when the world is watching, when the country is asking themselves what we can do to make sure that another mass slaughter does not happen again, the rules say that we can't say word.” – emphasizing frustration “If you can't talk about anti-gun violence policy the day after a large number of Americans are shot, then you will never talk about anti-gun violence policy, because on average 86 people die from gun violence every single day. But even if you accept that there is never a bad time that we can talk about how we can end this carnage, then we also have to have the courage to take on all of the other ridiculous arguments about why we can't act.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; emphasizing frustration “But even if you don't believe that any specific law could have prevented the tragedy in Charleston or in Newtown.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “That is why in my heart I believe that our silence has made us complicit in these murders.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration; uniting/creating a community “Because if we did we would, at the very least, try to do something, anything to stop it, and we don't. And quite frankly Mr. President, removing one flag from one building in South Carolina does not cut it. Neither does a handful of retailers ceasing to sell confederate flag paraphernalia.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is not effective (i.c. removing Confederate flag) “That flag has quietly endorsed conscious and subconscious racism, particularly in the south, but really all across the country for as long as it has perceived to be a mainstream American symbol.” – evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing frustration “But removing the Confederate flag is a necessary but totally completely insufficient response to Charleston. Taking down a flag from a building is a pretty easy give back. Deciding to spend billions of dollars to make sure that troubled young men get the help they need for a sickness is harder.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is not effective (i.c. removing Confederate flag) “Now, Walmart should be congratulated for ceasing sales of the Confederate flag, but they still advertise an assault weapon online, that even their description concedes that it is designed for the military.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “Getting rid of the Confederate flag from their shelves is not going to help that unbelievably disturbing trend line.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events Analogies “Because Charleston happens ten times over every single day across this country. Eighty- six people die on average every day because of guns.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events 157 |

“That is four Sandy Hooks, ten Charlestons every day.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events Emotions “I remember the hours and days after the shooting, I remember feeling like I needed to be restrained about talking about the obvious policy issues to me that were due for airing, that sort of tumbled out of the facts surrounding that tragedy.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “And as we approached that family I remember struggling with what to say and I’m lucky that my senior senator, who sits behind me in the chamber, had the right words ready.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “But I held back, because it felt like the mourning and the grieving should take precedence over the action. It took me only up to the first wake that I attended to realize that I was wrong.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Interactions “Senator Blumenthal and I went to every single wake and every funeral that we could over the course of the first week. At the first, I remember waiting in a really long line, standing next to senator Blumenthal, and I remember, like it was yesterday, talking to a sobbing mother, who was standing in front of us in that long line, telling us about how her child survived the shooting only because she had been sick that day and she stayed home from school. But, all her daughter's friends were dead.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; showing vulnerability “He said to the parents something like, if you are ever ready or willing to talk about how we make sure that this doesn't happen again, we will be waiting. The dad did not pause for more than a few seconds before he said, clear as day, were ready now.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “When we do nothing, year after year, our silence sends a silent message of endorsement to the killers. I'm not saying we’re in conscious alignment with these assassins, but when all we do in the wake of Newtown and Tucson and Aurora and Charleston is rhetorical, then those on the fringe, those hanging on the edge of reason, those contemplating the unthinkable take a cue that we don't really mean it when we condemn mass violence.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; emphasizing frustration; appealing to existent community “In South Carolina, Reverend Pinckney new something about real action. He supported things like expanded background checks and body cameras for police. Maybe that is because he came from a family of action. His father and grandfather were both pastors who fought to end white-only political primaries and segregated school busing. He was not just about condemnation. He lived his life to effectuate political change.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation

158 |

“And last night, at the Sandy Hook Promise dinner, I chatted with my friend Mark Barden. His son, Daniel, massacred at Sandy Hook Elementary School by a young man wielding a military style assault weapon with cartridges of 30-bullets a piece, would have just finished third grade last week. Mark recalled how special Daniel, how Daniel, just six years old, lived a life of action too. Daniel was that kid who sensed when other children were hurting. His father told me last night how Daniel would see little kids sitting alone at lunch with no one to talk to and Daniel would go over, sit down next to them, make a new friend just because it was the right thing to do. Reverend Pinckney and little Daniel Barden knew the difference between words and actions. They understood that actions are what really count.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed legislation or regulation is (i.c. gun control)/is not (i.c. arming everyone and removing Confederate flag) effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the final text of the third unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors:

References to own texts:

159 |

Unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen Ted Cruz (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: June 20, 2015 Type of act: Interview Location/means of communication: Town hall meeting in Red Oak, IA Source: Roth, S. (2015, June 21). Ted Cruz Cracks Jokes On Gun Control Days After Charleston Shooting. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/20/ted-cruz-gun-control- charleston_n_7628960.html.

SEN. TED CRUZ: You know Democrats always like to go after our right to keep and bear arms. We have seen a consistent pattern from the Obama Administration and Democrats in general. Being willing to violate the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I believe in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I’ve spend my entire adult life fighting to defend the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Now, all of us are horrified by the murder that occurred at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. A sick and deranged man went and prayed for an hour with the congregants in an historically black church and then, for reasons that we don’t fully understand, murdered nine innocent souls. It’s horrific, our prayers are with the families who lost love ones. Sadly there is evil in the world and there is evil in the world that has to be dealt with. We’ll find out more about this crazed gunman and what led him, let to this to happen. Right now, we’re lifting up the families of those who lost loved ones at the Emanuel AME Church.

But, I’ll tell you, it’s reminiscent of Rahm Emanuel who said you can never let a good crisis go to waste. It’s sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as an excuse, not to go after people with serious mental illness or people who are repeat felons or criminals, but rather try to use it as an excuse to take away Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, those are altogether different issues.

REPORTER: Senator, why do you think it has been so difficult for members of your party to acknowledge the attack was racially driven, even though this shooter has acknowledges that part?

SEN. TED CRUZ: You know I’ll note that you are reporting for Huffington Post and often the premise of the question is what you are supposed to accept. I don’t accept the premise of your question. Look, it certainly appears to be racially driven, from what was reported this deranged man said. And a racial hate crime is horrific and any murder is horrific. And, at the end of the day, anytime an innocent life is lost we all grief and we should all ask what can law enforcement do to more effectively protect us. But, I think the premise of your question…….I don’t think we should be using this tragedy to try to divide people and to try to seek partisan advantage. I think we should be praying for those who lost loved ones in this horrific murder.

ANALYSIS

160 |

Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: Charleston church shooting) and racial hate crimes.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. Democrats are using the tragedy as an excuse to take away constitutional rights. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, e.g. expressing the horror of the crime. Directive: Yes, directive in the sense that he thinks the people should pray and not seek partisan advantage. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “A sick and deranged man went and prayed for an hour with the congregants in an historically black church and then, for reasons that we don’t fully understand, murdered nine innocent souls.” – evoke emotional reaction; demonising offender(s) “We’ll find out more about this crazed gunman and what led him, let to this to happen. Right now, we’re lifting up the families of those who lost loved ones at the Emanuel AME Church.” – evoke emotional reaction; demonising offender(s); remembrance and sympathizing with victims “Look, it certainly appears to be racially driven, from what was reported this deranged man said. And a racial hate crime is horrific and any murder is horrific.” – evoke emotional reaction; demonising offender(s) “I think we should be praying for those who lost loved ones in this horrific murder.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims Metaphors “But, I’ll tell you, it’s reminiscent of Rahm Emanuel who said you can never let a good crisis go to waste. It’s sad to see the Democrats take a horrific crime and try to use it as an excuse, not to go after people with serious mental illness or people who are repeat felons or criminals, but rather try to use it as an excuse to take away Second Amendment rights of law abiding citizens, those are altogether different issues.” – showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; creating an outgroup (not of offenders, but of Democrats who are misusing this tragedy for partisan gains, leading to the harm of Second Amendment rights); emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians “(…) I don’t think we should be using this tragedy to try to divide people and to try to seek partisan advantage.” – uniting; emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians Analogies none Emotions “Now, all of us are horrified by the murder that occurred at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston.” – evoke emotional reaction “It’s horrific, our prayers are with the families who lost love ones. Sadly there is evil in the world and there is evil in the world that has to be dealt with.” - evoke emotional reaction; sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now Stereotypes 161 | none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the second text of this unit of analysis and the second text of Ted Cruz in total. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Direct reaction to Democrat gun control advocates who, Cruz states, go after Second Amendment rights and seek partisan advantage out of this tragedy. References to own texts: none

162 |

Unit of analysis: Charleston Church shooting (June 18, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Ted Cruz (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: June 20, 2015 Type of act: Interview Location/means of communication: Campaign event at CrossRoads Shooting Sports in Johnston, IA Source: Caffeinated Thoughts. (2015, June 20). Ted Cruz Discusses Charleston Shooting. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wG9qXqZrCX0.

REPORTER #1: You think that jokes yesterday about gun control were a little bit optimistic, in light of what happened this week?

SEN. TED CRUZ: I’ve got to say the only people who thought that, were folks at the Huffington Post, who are trying to politicize things. At the end of the day, most Americans understand fully well there is a qualitative difference between people who are sick and deranged and are committing horrible acts of murder, that we should all come together in denouncing the tragic shooting that occurred at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston. And we should pray for the families who lost loved ones. I have to say as a Christian, the idea that someone could sit-down and pray for an hour in a church and then murder the people, that he was praying with, is horrifying. It is the face of evil. And we should be looking at this as an opportunity to bring people together and pray for the families. One of the incredible things yesterday was to see the families of those who were murdered, calling for forgiveness of the murderer. What a powerful demonstration of Christian love. I have to admit, if it were my family I don’t know if I could demonstrate that degree of forgiveness. And it is a shame that there are some in politics that want to use this tragedy to divide us. I think that’s wrong. But I also think there is a qualitative difference between that and protecting the Bill of Rights, protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens, which is altogether different and unconnected from a horrific murder committed by a sick and deranged individual.

REPORTER #2: Senator Cruz, you talked about protecting the Second Amendment. Would you have any restrictions on buying guns or registering guns? How would you treat gun ownership?

SEN. TED CRUZ: We have in placed right now federal law that requires a background checks if you purchase a firearm at a federally licenced dealer. You have a background check and I would know...... two years ago we were facing another tragedy, the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, and every one of us who are parents, particularly parents of young kids, you could not help to be horrified about what happened in Newtown. And that was another example of where President Obama could have used that as an opportunity to bring us together and he could have used it as an opportunity to bring people together to say ‘let’s go after violent criminals, let’s target bad guys, let’s do what we can to protect our kids’. But, instead, he didn’t. Instead, President Obama and Senate Democrats cynically used the tragedy at Newtown to try to put a legislative agenda to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens. I think that was wrong and it was a mistake and I helped lead the fight to stop President Obama’s efforts to take away our right to keep and bear arms. Now, I would know, a critical piece of defeating that I joined with Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley in drafting what became known as the Law Enforcement Alternative. Grassley-Cruz was the legislation, it was comprehensive gun

163 | legislation, but unlike President Obama’s, it wasn’t targeted at law-abiding citizens. It was targeted at bad guys. So for example, under President Obama roughly fifty thousand felons and fugitives had attempted to illegally buy firearms. They come in at licenced gun dealers, had tried to buy firearms and yet is disclosed they were felons, they were fugitives. And of those, and this was I believe the 2010 year, the Obama Administration had only prosecuted 44. 44 out of, I believe, 54.000, although we’ll double-check on those stats. But I believe it’s 44 out of 54.000. Now, in my view that’s totally unacceptable. If you have a violent felon, If you have a fugitive that is trying to illegally buy guns, we should come down on them like a ton of bricks. I want to know if there are murderers and rapists coming in trying to get guns, we got to go and stop them. And yet, the Obama Administration prosecuted 44 out of 54.000 felons and fugitives illegally trying to buy guns. Likewise, under President Obama the prosecution of violent gun crimes dropped dramatically from the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration created what was known as ‘Project Exile’, targeting violent gun felons. If you use a gun in a violent crime, we will come down on you like a ton of bricks. The Obama Justice Department devoted far less time and energy to do so and the prosecution rates have plummeted. Additionally, one of the things President Obama did is he slashed the funding for school safety. With roughly 300 million dollars, he cut the budgeting for school safety. So, what did Grassley-Cruz do? We work together to say let’s focus on the bad guys. So, we focus on let’s target violent felons and fugitives. When the felon comes in and try to illegally buy a gun, we are going to prosecute that felon, we are going to go after that felon, we are going to put real time and resources to prosecuting those who commit gun crimes. Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina said this individual who committed the heinous murder in South Carolina should be subject to the death penalty. And I have got to say the death penalty was designed for people who commit horrid crimes like this. And we also had funding to restore the school safety funding that the Obama Administration had cut. Now what happened. When that came to the Senate floor, Grassley- Cruz received a majority vote on the floor of the Senate, mind you this is in a Harry Reid Democratic Senate, it received more bipartisan votes than any of the comprehensive gun legislation that was introduced. 52 votes including, I believe, 9 Democrats voted for. The only reason Grassley-Cruz didn’t get passed is because Harry Reid and the Senate Democrats filibustered it. Because they weren’t willing to come together and go after violent criminals. Their focus was simply on restricting the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens, the men and women gathered here who exercising their constitutional right. We should protect them and that is entirely consistent with going after the bad guys.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: Charleston church shooting and the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting).

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. President Obama and Senate Democrats are not targeting violent criminals but restricting Second Amendment rights. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, e.g. expressing horror and tragic side of the event. Directive: Yes, should protect constitutional rights and go after bad guys. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): 164 |

Direct mentioning/wordings “(…) that we should all come together in denouncing the tragic shooting that occurred at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims Metaphors “At the end of the day, most Americans understand fully well there is a qualitative difference between people who are sick and deranged and are committing horrible acts of murder, (…)” – creating an outgroup “And it is a shame that there are some in politics that want to use this tragedy to divide us.” – emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians “But I also think there is a qualitative difference between that and protecting the Bill of Rights, protecting the constitutional right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens, which is altogether different and unconnected from a horrific murder committed by a sick and deranged individual.” – evoke emotional reaction; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; demonising offender(s) “And that was another example of where President Obama could have used that as an opportunity to bring us together and he could have used it as an opportunity to bring people together to say ‘let’s go after violent criminals, let’s target bad guys, let’s do what we can to protect our kids’. But, instead, he didn’t. Instead, President Obama and Senate Democrats cynically used the tragedy at Newtown to try to put a legislative agenda to restrict the right to keep and bear arms of law-abiding citizens.” – creating an outgroup (not of offenders, but of Democrats who are misusing this tragedy for partisan gains, leading to the harm of Second Amendment rights); showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “I have to say as a Christian, the idea that someone could sit-down and pray for an hour in a church and then murder the people, that he was praying with, is horrifying. It is the face of evil.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; demonising offender(s); emphasizing abnormality of event

“One of the incredible things yesterday was to see the families of those who were murdered, calling for forgiveness of the murderer. What a powerful demonstration of Christian love. I have to admit, if it were my family I don’t know if I could demonstrate that degree of forgiveness.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “(…) two years ago we were facing another tragedy, the shooting at Newtown, Connecticut, and every one of us who are parents, particularly parents of young kids, you could not help to be horrified about what happened in Newtown.” - evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims Interactions

165 |

“And we should pray for the families who lost loved ones.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims “And we should be looking at this as an opportunity to bring people together and pray for the families.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; uniting “Governor Nikki Haley of South Carolina said this individual who committed the heinous murder in South Carolina should be subject to the death penalty. And I have got to say the death penalty was designed for people who commit horrid crimes like this.” - evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing abnormality of event

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically this is the fourth text (or the third, because it was held on the same day as Hillary Clinton’s speech). Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Same as his previous text regarding Democrats and Obama. But, this time he also refers to AWB and Manchin-Toomey Amendment, efforts after the shooting in Newtown. References to own texts: Similar reasoning as his previous text.

166 |

D. Texts of the fourth unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015)

Unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D), gun control advocate Date: July 22, 2015 Type of act: Bill S.1835 (introduced July 22, 2015) Location/means of communication: Senate Source: Military Facilities Force Protection Act of 2015, S.1835, 114th Congress. (2015).

S. 1835

To enhance military facilities force protection.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 22, 2015

Ms. BALDWIN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To enhance military facilities force protection.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Military Facilities Force Protection Act of 2015”.

SEC. 2. MILITARY RECRUITING AND RESERVE COMPONENT FACILITIES FORCE PROTECTION ENHANCEMENTS.

(a) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) FIREARM.—The term “firearm” means a handgun issued by the Federal Government or a State or local government.

(2) HANDGUN.—The term “handgun” has the meaning given the term in section 921 of title 18, United States Code.

167 |

(3) MILITARY PERSONNEL.—The term “military personnel” means all members of the Armed Forces who are trained by the Armed Forces in the use of firearms.

(4) MILITARY RECRUITING FACILITIES.—The term “military recruiting facilities” means government owned or leased recruiting offices, intermediate command stations, and main stations.

(5) RESERVE COMPONENT FACILITY.—The term “reserve component facility” has the meaning given the term “facility” in section 18232(2) of title 10, United States Code.

(b) USE OF ARMED SECURITY PERSONNEL.—

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law or Department of Defense or military department regulation, the Secretary of Defense shall station military police or other military personnel armed with firearms, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary, at military recruiting and reserve component facilities for the exclusive purpose of force protection.

(2) USE OF ALTERNATIVE PERSONNEL.—Upon a determination by the Secretary that military personnel are not available to meet the force protection requirement under paragraph (1), the Secretary is authorized to enter into memoranda of understanding with State or local law enforcement agencies or State National Guards for the exclusive purpose of such force protection.

(3) REQUIRED TRAINING.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—In consultation with the Attorney General and State and local law enforcement, as appropriate, the Secretary of Defense shall develop and implement a required training program for all force protection personnel stationed under this section.

(B) ELEMENTS.—The training program required under subparagraph (A) shall include—

(i) civil law enforcement rules of engagement, including appropriate escalation of force;

(ii) gun safety procedures, including safe storage and transport; and

168 |

(iii) education on the relevant laws and first responder policies of the State and local jurisdictions in which the assigned force protection personnel are located.

(1) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law or Department of Defense or military department regulation, the Secretary of Defense shall implement all reasonable and appropriate measures to improve the security of existing military recruitment and reserve component facilities.

(2) ELEMENTS.—The measures implemented under paragraph (1) shall, at a minimum, include the installation of bullet-proof glass and enhanced video surveillance equipment, where appropriate.

(3) RELOCATION OF FACILITIES.—Upon determination by the Secretary that adequate security improvements cannot be made at an existing military recruitment or reserve component facility in its current location, the Secretary shall relocate such facility to a location consistent with the security improvements required under this subsection.

(d) RULES OF CONSTRUCTION.—Nothing in this section shall be construed as providing armed military personnel with—

(1) additional law enforcement authorities, including authorities to make arrests, to execute or serve warrants, or perform any other civil law enforcement function; or

(2) the authority to perform force protection functions outside military recruiting or reserve component facilities or the immediate vicinity thereof.

(e) REPORT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the actions taken to comply with the requirements under this section.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: No. Commissive: No. Expressive: No.

169 |

Directive: Yes, insisting that security is installed at military facilities. Declarative: Yes, if this passes the Congress then the protection at military facilities is enhanced.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings none Metaphors “To enhance military facilities force protection.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “The term “military recruiting facilities” means government owned or leased recruiting offices, intermediate command stations, and main stations.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “The term “reserve component facility” has the meaning given the term “facility” in section 18232(2) of title 10, United States Code.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “(…) the Secretary of Defense shall station military police or other military personnel armed with firearms, as deemed appropriate by the Secretary, at military recruiting and reserve component facilities for the exclusive purpose of force protection.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “(…) the Secretary of Defense shall implement all reasonable and appropriate measures to improve the security of existing military recruitment and reserve component facilities.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties 170 | emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically this is the fourth text of the fourth unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: none

171 |

Unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015) Securitizing actor: Donald Trump (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: July 17, 2015 Type of act: Interview Location/means of communication: MSNBC’s Morning Joe Source: Morning Joe. (2015, July 17). Donald Trump calls into Morning Joe. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/trump--i-cant-go-after-lawrence-after-his- apology-486164035508.

JOE SCARBOROUGH: Yesterday in Tennessee, obviously, a tragedy, four marines killed. President Obama had a press conference after a previous shooting saying this happens for too much. Donald, what in the world can the President of the United States do to stop people from spreading terror across this country?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, it is a very tough situation for the country and we have to increase our intel groups, and we have some great groups, and, frankly, we are going to have to get much tougher with law enforcement. We have law enforcement that is afraid to go up to people now, they are afraid to lose their job, they want to get their pension in twenty years, etcetera, and we are going to have to let our law enforcement go. We have to start doing something with these gun-free zones, where these four soldiers, highly decorated and in at least one instance really highly decorated, are not allowed to have guns, so they were sitting there and were just targets for this guy, for this mad guy, mad man. We have got to do changes. You are going to have to get rid of the gun-free zones, you are going to have to let these people, that are trained specialists with guns, not sit there without guns, so some whack job like this can come in and shoot them. It’s a very tough situation and getting tougher and I’ll suspect you see more and more of it. We are going to have to do something, I mean he is growing up in an area – I can’t imagine that some people in the area didn’t see that he was going off the wire and couldn't have reported him in some form.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in specific: 2015 Chattanooga shootings).

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Belief that something has to be done about the gun-free zones, that trained soldiers should be armed. Commissive: No, Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “We have to start doing something with these gun-free zones, where these four soldiers, highly decorated and in at least one instance really highly decorated, are not allowed to have guns, so they were sitting there and were just targets for this guy, for this mad guy,

172 | mad man.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance; showing vulnerability; demonising offender(s); appealing to existent community; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective “You are going to have to get rid of the gun-free zones, you are going to have to let these people, that are trained specialists with guns, not sit there without guns, so some whack job like this can come in and shoot them.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance; showing vulnerability; demonising offender(s); showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective Metaphors “It’s a very tough situation and getting tougher and I’ll suspect you see more and more of it.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; scare the audience Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions “We are going to have to do something, I mean he is growing up in an area – I can’t imagine that some people in the area didn’t see that he was going off the wire and couldn't have reported him in some form.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; demonising offender(s); appealing to existent community

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: 173 |

Chronologically, this is the first text of the fourth unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: none

174 |

Unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Ron Johnson (R), gun rights/second amendment advocate Date: July 21, 2015 Type of act: Bill S.1821 (introduced July 21, 2015) Location/means of communication: Senate Source: Armed Forces Self-Defense Act, S.1821, 114th Congress. (2015).

S. 1821

To permit service members to carry firearms on military installations, including reserve centers and recruitment offices.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21, 2015

Mr. JOHNSON introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To permit service members to carry firearms on military installations, including reserve centers and recruitment offices.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Armed Forces Self-Defense Act”.

SEC. 2. STATEMENT OF POLICY.

(a) IN GENERAL.—It is the policy of the United States that Department of Defense personnel shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.

(b) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE POLICY.—It shall be the policy of the Department of Defense to permit trained military personnel to carry, open or concealed, certain personal firearms while on military installations in the United States.

175 |

SEC. 3. REPEAL OF PORTIONS OF REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES PROHIBITING SERVICE MEMBERS TRAINED IN THE USE OF FIREARMS FROM CARRYING A PERSONAL FIREARM ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION.

(a) TERMINATION OF FORCE AND EFFECT OF CURRENT REGULATIONS AND DIRECTIVES.—Effective not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the following regulations, directives, and rules shall have no further force or effect:

(1) Section 4.b. of the Department of Defense Directive Number 5210.56, issued on November 1, 2001, and modified on January 24, 2002, and on April 1, 2011.

(2) Army Regulation 190–14, issued on March 12, 1993.

(b) OTHER FIREARM BANS.—Effective not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, any provision in any other rule, regulation, or Executive order that prohibits military personnel trained in firearms from carrying personal firearms on United States military installations shall have no further force or effect with regard to such military personnel, and such military personnel shall not be prohibited from carrying personal firearms on United States military installations.

SEC. 4. PROCESS BY WHICH SERVICE MEMBERS MAY CARRY A PERSONAL FIREARM ON A MILITARY INSTALLATION.

(a) PROCESS REQUIRED.—Not later than 60 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense, taking into consideration the views of senior leadership of military installations in the United States, shall establish a process by which the commander of a military installation in the United States may authorize a member of the Armed Forces who is assigned to duty at the installation to carry a personal firearm on the installation if the commander determines it to be necessary as a personal- or force-protection measure.

(b) RELATION TO STATE AND LOCAL LAW.—In establishing the process under subsection (a) for a military installation, the commander of the installation shall consult with elected officials of the State and local jurisdictions in which the installation is located and take into consideration the law of the State and such jurisdictions regarding carrying a personal firearm.

(c) MEMBER QUALIFICATIONS.—To be eligible to be authorized to carry a personal firearm on a military installation pursuant to the process established under subsection (a), a member of the Armed Forces—

176 |

(1) must complete any training and certification required by any State in which the installation is located that would permit the member to carry in that State;

(2) must not be subject to disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice for any offense that could result in incarceration or separation from the Armed Forces; and

(3) must not be prohibited from possessing a firearm because of conviction of a crime of domestic violence.

(d) STATE DEFINED.—In this section, the term “State” includes the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and any territory or possession of the United States.

SEC. 5. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act:

(1) MILITARY INSTALLATION.—The term “military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity, including a reserve center and a recruitment office, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department.

(2) FIREARM.—The term “firearm” means a handgun, specifically, a gun designed for use in one hand such as a pistol or a revolver.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: No. Commissive: No. Expressive: No. Directive: Yes, insisting to approved military personnel to carry firearms on military installations. Declarative: Yes, if this passes the Congress service members are permitted to carry firearms on military installations.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings none Metaphors

177 |

“To permit service members to carry firearms on military installations, including reserve centers and recruitment offices.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “It is the policy of the United States that Department of Defense personnel shall be appropriately armed and have the inherent right to self-defense.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “It shall be the policy of the Department of Defense to permit trained military personnel to carry, open or concealed, certain personal firearms while on military installations in the United States.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “The term “military installation” means a base, camp, post, station, yard, center, or other activity, including a reserve center and a recruitment office, under the jurisdiction of the Secretary of a military department.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions None

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the second text of the fourth unit of analysis. 178 |

Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: none

179 |

Unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Jerry Moran (R), gun rights/second amendment advocate Date: July 21, 2015 Type of act: Bill S.1823 (introduced July 21, 2015) Location/means of communication: Senate Source: A bill to safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces military installations by repealing bans on military personnel carrying firearms, and for other purposes, S.1823, 114th Congress (2015).

S. 1823

To safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces military installations by repealing bans on military personnel carrying firearms, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 21, 2015

Mr. MORAN introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces military installations by repealing bans on military personnel carrying firearms, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. REPEAL OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS DISARMING FIREARMS- TRAINED MILITARY PERSONNEL AND PROHIBITION ON REIMPOSING BANS ON MILITARY PERSONNEL CARRYING FIREARMS.

(a) FINDINGS.—Congress makes the following findings:

(1) In the attack on the Armed Forces Recruitment Center in Times Square in 2008, the attack on Fort Hood in 2009, the attack at the United States Military Recruiting Office in Little Rock in 2009, the attack at the Pentagon in 2010, the attack at the Washington Navy Yard in 2013, and the United States Army and Marine Corps Chattanooga shootings in 2015, military personnel were unable to carry firearms and respond with force.

180 |

(2) Military personnel are trained in the use of firearms, with live-fire qualification and use-of-force training.

(3) Military personnel are entrusted with firearms and other weapons in the defense of the United States.

(4) Gun-free zones on military installations and Department of Defense sites such as military recruitment centers are vulnerable targets.

(b) REPEAL OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS DISARMING MILITARY PERSONNEL.—

(1) REPEAL.—Effective on the date of the enactment of this Act—

(A) Army Regulation 190–14, issued on March 12, 1993, is repealed;

(B) Department of Defense Directive Number 5210.56, issued on February 25, 1992, as modified on April 1, 2011, and by any subsequent modification, is repealed; and

(C) any other prohibition in law, rule, regulation or Executive order that prohibits military personnel from carrying a firearm on a military installation or Department of Defense site within the United States, including section 1585 of title 10, United States Code (relating to carrying of firearms), section 922 of title 18, United States Code (relating to unlawful acts), and part 108.11 of title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (relating to carriage of weapons), shall have no further force or effect and may not be enforced.

(2) USE OF FIREARMS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in subparagraph (B), effective as of the date of the enactment of this Act, military personnel shall not be prohibited from carrying firearms on military installations or Department of Defense sites. Military personnel carrying firearms shall adhere to CJCSI 3121.01B, Standing Rules of Engagement and Standing Rules for the Use of Force for the U.S. Forces (13 June 2005) with respect to the use of firearms on military installations and Department of Defense sites.

(B) EXCEPTION.—The commander of a military installation or Department of Defense may prohibit a member of the Armed Forces, on a case-by-case basis, from carrying firearms on the military installation or Department of Defense site if the commander determines that the prohibition with respect to the member is

181 |

necessary to prevent the member from committing bodily harm to the member or others.

(1) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE.—The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of the military departments shall not reinstate the firearm bans referred to in subsection (b) or enact similar restrictions prohibiting or restricting military personnel from carrying firearms.

(2) PRESIDENT.—The President shall not take any executive action or promulgate any rule or issue any Executive order or regulation to prohibit military personnel from carrying firearms.

(d) REPORTING REQUIREMENT.—Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall submit to Congress a report describing the actions taken to ensure compliance with this section.

(e) DEFINITIONS.—In this section:

(1) The term “Department of Defense sites” includes—

(A) recruitment centers; and

(B) Department of Defense facilities or assets that—

(i) lack or do not meet existing force protection and physical security standards as described in Department of Defense Directive 5200.08–R, April 9, 2007, regarding physical protection of Department of Defense personnel, installations, operations, and related resources; and

(ii) do not meet Homeland Security Presidential Directive 12, Policy for a Common Identification Standard for Federal Employees and Contractors to enhance security, increase Government efficiency, reduce identity fraud, and protect personal privacy by establishing a mandatory, Government-wide standard for secure and reliable forms of identification issued by the Federal Government to its employees and contractors (including contractor employees).

(2) The term “military personnel” means members of the Armed Forces, including members of the reserve components, who—

182 |

(A) are serving at a duty station on a military installation of the Department of Defense or a Department of Defense site; and

(B) are trained by the Armed Forces in the use of firearms.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: Washington Navy Yard shooting, 2015 Chattanooga shootings, 2009 Fort Hood shooting, 2008 Times Square bombing, 2009 Little Rock recruiting office shooting, 2010 Pentagon shooting)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, the belief that gun-free zones on military installations are vulnerable targets. Commissive: No. Expressive: No. Directive: Yes, insisting that military personnel shall not be prohibited to carry firearms in gun- free zones. Declarative: Yes, if this passes the Congress bans are repealed on military personnel carrying firearms.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “In the attack on the Armed Forces Recruitment Center in Times Square in 2008, the attack on Fort Hood in 2009, the attack at the United States Military Recruiting Office in Little Rock in 2009, the attack at the Pentagon in 2010, the attack at the Washington Navy Yard in 2013, and the United States Army and Marine Corps Chattanooga shootings in 2015, military personnel were unable to carry firearms and respond with force.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; showing vulnerability; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective Metaphors “To safeguard military personnel on Armed Forces military installations by repealing bans on military personnel carrying firearms, and for other purposes.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “Gun-free zones on military installations and Department of Defense sites such as military recruitment centers are vulnerable targets.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective “(…) military personnel shall not be prohibited from carrying firearms on military installations or Department of Defense sites.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “The commander of a military installation or Department of Defense may prohibit a member of the Armed Forces, on a case-by-case basis, from carrying firearms on the military installation or Department of Defense site if the commander determines that the

183 | prohibition with respect to the member is necessary to prevent the member from committing bodily harm to the member or others.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “The term “Department of Defense sites” includes— (A) recruitment centers; and (B) Department of Defense facilities or assets” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the third text of the fourth unit of analysis Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: none

184 |

Unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Rand Paul (R), gun rights/second amendment advocate Date: July 22, 2015 Type of act: Bill S.1839 (introduced July 22, 2015) Location/means of communication: Senate Source: Servicemembers Self-Defense Act of 2015, S.1839, 114th Congres. (2015).

S. 1839

To amend titles 10 and 18, to permit members of the Armed Forces to possess firearms on military installations in accordance with applicable State law, and for other purposes.

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

JULY 22, 2015

Mr. PAUL introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Armed Services

A BILL

To amend titles 10 and 18, to permit members of the Armed Forces to possess firearms on military installations in accordance with applicable State law, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Servicemembers Self-Defense Act of 2015”.

SEC. 2. FIREARMS PERMITTED ON DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROPERTY.

Section 930(g)(1) of title 18, United States Code, is amended—

(1) by striking “The term ‘Federal facility’ means” and inserting the following: “The term ‘Federal facility’—

“(A) means”;

(2) by striking the period at the end and inserting “; and”; and

185 |

(3) by adding at the end the following:

“(B) with respect to a qualified member of the Armed Forces, as defined in section 926D(a), does not include any land, a building, or any part thereof owned or leased by the Department of Defense.”.

SEC. 3. LAWFUL POSSESSION OF FIREARMS ON MILITARY INSTALLATIONS BY MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) MODIFICATION OF GENERAL ARTICLE.—Section 934 of title 10, United States Code (article 134 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice), is amended—

(1) by inserting “(a) IN GENERAL.—” before “Though not specifically mentioned”; and

(2) by adding at the end the following new subsection:

“(b) POSSESSION OF A FIREARM.—The possession of a concealed or open carry firearm by a member of the Armed Forces subject to this chapter on a military installation, if lawful under the laws of the State in which the installation is located, is not an offense under this section.”.

(b) MODIFICATION OF REGULATIONS.—Not later than 30 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Defense shall amend Department of Defense Directive number 5210.56 to provide that members of the Armed Forces may possess firearms for defensive purposes on facilities and installations of the Department of Defense in a manner consistent with the laws of the State in which the facility or installation concerned is located.

SEC. 4. CARRYING OF CONCEALED FIREARMS BY QUALIFIED MEMBERS OF THE ARMED FORCES.

(a) IN GENERAL.—Chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after section 926C the following:

“§ 926D. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified members of the Armed Forces

“(a) DEFINITIONS.—As used in this section—

“(1) the term ‘firearm’—

186 |

“(A) except as provided in this paragraph, has the same meaning as in section 921;

“(B) includes ammunition not expressly prohibited by Federal law or subject to the provisions of the National Firearms Act; and

“(C) does not include—

“(i) any machinegun (as defined in section 5845 of the National Firearms Act);

“(ii) any firearm silencer; or

“(iii) any destructive device; and

“(2) the term ‘qualified member of the Armed Forces’ means an individual who—

“(A) is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty status, as defined in section 101(d)(1) of title 10;

“(B) is not the subject of disciplinary action under the Uniform Code of Military Justice;

“(C) is not under the influence of alcohol or another intoxicating or hallucinatory drug or substance; and

“(D) is not prohibited by Federal law from receiving a firearm.

“(b) AUTHORIZATION.—Notwithstanding any provision of the law of any State or any political subdivision thereof, an individual who is a qualified member of the Armed Forces and who is carry identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, subject to subsection (c).

“(c) LIMITATIONS.—This section shall not be construed to superseded or limit the laws of any State that—

“(1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or

“(2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

187 |

“(d) IDENTIFICATION.—The identification required by this subsection is the photographic identification issued by the Department of Defense for the qualified member of the Armed Forces.”.

(b) TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT.—The table of sections for chapter 44 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 926C the following:

“926D. Carrying of concealed firearms by qualified members of the Armed Forces.”.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: No. Commissive: No. Expressive: No. Directive: Yes, insisting that members of the Armed Forces are permitted to possess firearms for defensive purposes on military installations. Declarative: Yes, if this passes the Congress members of the Armed Forces are permitted to possess firearms on military installations.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings none Metaphors “To amend titles 10 and 18, to permit members of the Armed Forces to possess firearms on military installations in accordance with applicable State law, and for other purposes.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “The possession of a concealed or open carry firearm by a member of the Armed Forces subject to this chapter on a military installation, if lawful under the laws of the State in which the installation is located, is not an offense under this section.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “(…) the Secretary of Defense shall amend Department of Defense Directive number 5210.56 to provide that members of the Armed Forces may possess firearms for defensive purposes on facilities and installations of the Department of Defense in a manner consistent with the laws of the State in which the facility or installation concerned is located.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “(…) an individual who is a qualified member of the Armed Forces and who is carry identification required by subsection (d) may carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce, (…)” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation 188 |

“(…) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the fifth text in the fourth unit of analysis Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: none

189 |

Unit of analysis: 2015 Chattanooga shootings (July 16, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Jerry Moran (R), gun rights/second amendment advocate Date: July 22, 2015 Type of act: Interview Location/means of communication: Fox Business Network Source: Moran, J. (2015, July 22). Sen. Moran Discusses Legislation to Safeguard Service Members’ 2nd Amendment Rights. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdkTkf4zrm8.

STUART VARNEY: Senator, are you going try to eliminate all gun-free zones, all across the country, no matter where they are or just recruitment centers?

SEN. JERRY MORAN: Well, it’s actually in between, Stuart. It’s not all gun-free zones, although that may make a lot of sense. What we are focused on is military installations. Not only those recruiting centers, but other places within the military in which our military men and women are denied the opportunity to carry a firearm.

STUART VARNEY: Do you have Republican and Democrat support for this?

SEN. JERRY MORAN: We are working to accomplish that. To me it shouldn’t be a partisan issue and I hope it’s not, it’s just a common sense issue. That was what I was getting to say is we have some of the best-trained, most disciplined individuals and yet the policy is such that they are unable to carry a sidearm to protect themselves, whether it is at a recruitment center or at a military installation otherwise. This just makes sense to me to utilise the ability for self- defense and more than self-defense, defending your colleagues as well.

STUART VARNEY: I believe that this gun-free zone idea at military recruitment centers, that was introduced back in 1992, I think that’s the case, was introduced because there were several shootings on military basis when soldiers were armed, fully armed and walking around with their guns. Little worried maybe that we’ll get back to that situation?

SEN. JERRY MORAN: Well, certainly I hope not. I mean, I continue to believe that people are better protected in almost every circumstance when they are able to protect themselves, protect their friends and colleagues, the people who surround them. If there is some individual problem that is related to a person who is incapable of making a solid choice. For example if they are likely to be of harm to themselves or others, our legislation allows a base commander on a case- by-case basis to say ‘you can’t carry a firearm’. But we want that to be the exception. One of the problems here is in a broad solution in legislation that requires the ability to carry a firearm, you are intruding on chain of command. I understand that, but in this case, the commander in chief is the President and the President is not going to be very favourably inclined to allowing soldiers to protect themselves and others. So, we made the decision that, broadly speaking, a member of the military ought to be able to carry a firearm.

STUART VARNEY: OK. Senator Jerry Moran, Republican, Kansas, thanks very much for joining us. We appreciate you being here, thank you.

190 |

SEN. JERRY MORAN: Thank you, Stuart.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: 2015 Chattanooga shootings)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Expressing the believe that people are better protected when able to protect themselves and colleagues with firearms, especially on military installations. Commissive: Yes, trying to eliminate specific gun-free zones. Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings none Metaphors “What we are focused on is military installations. Not only those recruiting centers, but other places within the military in which our military men and women are denied the opportunity to carry a firearm.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “That was what I was getting to say is we have some of the best-trained, most disciplined individuals and yet the policy is such that they are unable to carry a sidearm to protect themselves, whether it is at a recruitment center or at a military installation otherwise.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective “(…) I continue to believe that people are better protected in almost every circumstance when they are able to protect themselves, protect their friends and colleagues, the people who surround them.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “This just makes sense to me to utilise the ability for self-defense and more than self- defense, defending your colleagues as well.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup 191 | remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the last text of the fourth unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: He indirectly refers to all the previous text in this unit of analysis by gun rights advocates by agreeing with and sharing all their policy views, namely allowing military men and women to have guns on military installations will enable them to better protect themselves and their colleagues. References to own texts: Refers to his own legislative text from this unit of analysis that he introduced to the Senate the day before on July 21, 2015. He elaborates on the content and motivations, arguing that allowing military men and women to have guns on military installations will enable them to better protect themselves and their colleagues.

192 |

E. Texts of the fifth unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015)

Unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Barbara Boxer (D), gun control advocate Date: December 3, 2015 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Senate floor Source: U.S. Senate. (2015, December 3). Senator Barbara Boxer on the San Bernardino, California, Shootings. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?401545-3/senator- barbara-boxer-san-bernardino-california-shootings.

SEN. BARBARA BOXER: Mr. President, when I woke up this morning, I’d hope that yesterday's tragedy in San Bernardino was just an unimaginable nightmare. And then, as I usually do in the morning, I go through the clips from my state, and I read the headlines: "Blood bath in San Bernardino," "14 slain at California office party," "Carnage in California," "Shooting rampage sows terror in California," "At least 14 dead in mass shooting," "Deadly rampage at holiday party," "A day of horror," "Horror hits home," "Horrific" just one word, "Masked mass murder." These are from papers from all over my state and a couple of national headlines.

My heart is broken after this rampage that led to the tragic loss of life. So many injuries, so much trauma and pain for the people of San Bernardino. I want to thank the medical personnel who are working as we speak to save lives, and all the brave, courageous law enforcement officers who rushed to the scene and later stopped these killers. We know that the victims in this attack were county employees at the San Bernardino Department of Public Health. I began my career as a county supervisor and I oversaw in Marin County, the Department of Public Health. And I know how dedicated those county employees are. They are right there. They're right there in the communities. And the facility was really dedicated to helping disabled people.

So for this to happen at a holiday party, where these employees were gathering in friendship, it's a stunning shock. And while details about the motive behind this despicable attack are still unknown, here's what we do know. Because these killers used military-style weapons, 14 people died and 17 people were wounded in a matter of minutes. The purpose of these guns, these military-style guns, is to kill a lot of people very fast, Mr. President. The scene looked like a war zone, and there's a reason for that. Again, because these weapons, they're designed for the military. They're designed for the police. And I have to be honest with you, sir. I have never heard one persuasive argument about why anyone else would need to have this type of weapon. These weapons of war, they just don't belong on our streets and in our communities.

My colleague, senator Feinstein, for years has been pushing sensible legislation that would keep these military-style weapons off our streets. We need to stand with her. We need to stand with her across party lines and pass it. It is so discouraging, Mr. President, that we can't even pass legislation here that would keep suspected terrorists who are on the no-fly list from legally buying a weapon, any kind of a weapon. So it isn't enough for us to keep lamenting these tragedies. We need to take action now before something else like this happens again in your state, in my state. You know, when we take an oath of office, we swear that we will protect and

193 | defend the American people. I just don't think we're protecting them. Will we allow these type of weapons to get into the wrong hands?

This year, we're averaging more than one mass shooting every single day. Multiple people killed by guns, innocent people every day. This is America. This doesn't happen in other industrialized nations. 31 people die every day from gun violence, 31 people. After ten years of the Vietnam War, we lost nearly 60,000 Americans, and people were in despair. We lose more than that to gun violence in less than two years in this great nation. If it was anything else that caused the death of 30,000 Americans a year, every single senator would be in their chair, and we would be demanding action and we would be crossing over party lines to stop it, because that, my friends, is an epidemic.

People deserve to feel safe in their communities. I don't understand it. They deserve to feel safe when they go to a holiday party at work. They deserve to be safe sitting in these galleries. They deserve to be safe, going to a movie theatre. They deserve to be safe in their school when they are 6 years old or 16 or 26. They deserve to be safe in their workplace. At a shopping mall, at a restaurant and at a health care clinic. This is our job, to keep our people safe. We know the threats that face us abroad, and we have threats at home. So we need to do both. We need to protect our people abroad from threats abroad and from threats at home, and the very best way to honor the victims of gun violence is to take sensible steps that are supported by the American people like universal background checks, keeping assault weapons in the hands of our military and our police, safety features on guns, keeping guns out of the hands of people who were unbalanced, unstable criminals, and then we can prevent these tragedies.

Will we prevent every tragedy? No. I know my friends say well, someone could have a knife. Yes. It's a lot easier to get away from a knife than an automatic weapon that mows you down before you can even look up and figure out what's happening. So I’m crying out today for support for sensible gun laws. And regardless of motive, regardless of motive we need to make sure that military weapons belong in the hands of the military and the police. It's pretty straightforward. Our people are not safe. I don't care what state you look at, I don't care what city you look at, I don't care what town you look at. San Bernardino is a beautiful place. I don't live far from there, I have an office about 15 minutes or less from there. People deserve to feel safe in our communities. And so I send my love, my prayers, my solidarity to the community, to the families, to the first responders, to everyone there.

And yeah, we're going to pull together, like all these communities do, but we need to prevent these things from happening because if we don't, we're liable. I believe we're liable. We know what's killing people every day. It's gun violence, and we know it. I'm not a lawyer but I have a lot of family members who are lawyers. My son, my father was, my husband is. And I think once you know something is happening and you can do something about it and you don't do something about it, you're liable. Maybe not in a legal sense. In the moral sense. So I hope we're going to come together around this.

Every time the press comes and asks me tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. Will something happen now? After Sandy Hook, I said absolutely, we're going to come together. We did not. We did not. And I want to just close with this.

194 |

In California, we have tough gun laws. I don't know how these weapons got where they were. We'll find out. And people say well, you have these gun laws. Look at this. We have had a 56% reduction in gun violence since 1993 in my great state because we have taken action, but this is one nation under god. Somebody comes from a nearby state, from north, from east and they have a gun. So that's why it is so important for us to work together and have sensible national laws, universal background checks. Almost 90% of the people support it. The majority of NRA members support it. What's wrong with us that we can't do that? What are we afraid of? And these military assault style weapons that kill so fast and so many people, we should make sure that they're in the hands of the military and the police.

Mr. President, my heart is heavy, and it will remain so. This was supposed to be a great day for a lot of us who worked so long and hard on a highway bill. This is a moment that we were waiting for. And that's what life's about. You know, there are these moments that you savor and there are moments that you wish to god you never had to talk about or experience, and that's the kind of day it is for this particular senator, and I know senator Feinstein feels the same way. I thank you very much, and I yield the floor.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: San Bernardino attack, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting), domestic terrorism and the Vietnam War.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that we are morally liable and belief that we have to work together for gun control, because it helps. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, e.g. her heart is heavy and broken. Directive: Yes, invites fellow Senators to take action. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “(…) I read the headlines: "Blood bath in San Bernardino," "14 slain at California office party," "Carnage in California," "Shooting rampage sows terror in California," "At least 14 dead in mass shooting," "Deadly rampage at holiday party," "A day of horror," "Horror hits home," "Horrific" just one word, "Masked mass murder."” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing abnormality of event “We know that the victims in this attack were county employees at the San Bernardino Department of Public Health.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims “And while details about the motive behind this despicable attack are still unknown, here's what we do know. Because these killers used military-style weapons, 14 people died and 17 people were wounded in a matter of minutes.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing abnormality of event “This year, we're averaging more than one mass shooting every single day. Multiple people killed by guns, innocent people every day. This is America. This doesn't happen in other industrialized nations. 31 people die every day from gun violence, 31 people.” – 195 | creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing abnormality of event; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “I don't know how these weapons got where they were. We'll find out.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Metaphors “(…) that we can't even pass legislation here that would keep suspected terrorists who are on the no-fly list from legally buying a weapon, (…)” – emphasizing frustration; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “They deserve to feel safe when they go to a holiday party at work. They deserve to be safe sitting in these galleries. They deserve to be safe, going to a movie theatre. They deserve to be safe in their school when they are 6 years old or 16 or 26. They deserve to be safe in their workplace. At a shopping mall, at a restaurant and at a health care clinic.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; showing vulnerability “(…) the very best way to honor the victims of gun violence is to take sensible steps that are supported by the American people like universal background checks, keeping assault weapons in the hands of our military and our police, safety features on guns, keeping guns out of the hands of people who were unbalanced, unstable criminals, and then we can prevent these tragedies.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “It's a lot easier to get away from a knife than an automatic weapon that mows you down before you can even look up and figure out what's happening.” – scare the audience; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “We have had a 56% reduction in gun violence since 1993 in my great state because we have taken action, but this is one nation under god.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is effective (namely gun control in California) “And these military assault style weapons that kill so fast and so many people, we should make sure that they're in the hands of the military and the police.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; scare the audience Analogies “The scene looked like a war zone, and there's a reason for that.” – evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing abnormality of event “After ten years of the Vietnam War, we lost nearly 60,000 Americans, and people were in despair. We lose more than that to gun violence in less than two years in this great nation. If it was anything else that caused the death of 30,000 Americans a year, every single senator would be in their chair, and we would be demanding action and we would be crossing over party lines to stop it, because that, my friends, is an epidemic.” - uniting/creating a community; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events Emotions

196 |

“(…) I’d hope that yesterday's tragedy in San Bernardino was just an unimaginable nightmare.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing abnormality of event “My heart is broken after this rampage that led to the tragic loss of life.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “So for this to happen at a holiday party, where these employees were gathering in friendship, it's a stunning shock.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing abnormality of event; showing vulnerability “(…) my heart is heavy, and it will remain so.” - evoke emotional reaction Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “So many injuries, so much trauma and pain for the people of San Bernardino.” – evoke emotional reaction; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “I began my career as a county supervisor and I oversaw in Marin County, the Department of Public Health. And I know how dedicated those county employees are. They are right there. They're right there in the communities. And the facility was really dedicated to helping disabled people.” – uniting/creating a community; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “San Bernardino is a beautiful place. I don't live far from there, I have an office about 15 minutes or less from there. People deserve to feel safe in our communities. And so I send my love, my prayers, my solidarity to the community, to the families, to the first responders, to everyone there.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “You know, there are these moments that you savor and there are moments that you wish to god you never had to talk about or experience, and that's the kind of day it is for this particular senator, and I know senator Feinstein feels the same way.” - evoke emotional reaction Interactions “I want to thank the medical personnel who are working as we speak to save lives, and all the brave, courageous law enforcement officers who rushed to the scene and later stopped these killers.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims “So it isn't enough for us to keep lamenting these tragedies. We need to take action now before something else like this happens again in your state, in my state.” – uniting/creating a community; scare the audience; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “And yeah, we're going to pull together, like all these communities do, but we need to prevent these things from happening because if we don't, we're liable.” – uniting/creating a community; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance and sympathizing with victims “Every time the press comes and asks me tragedy after tragedy after tragedy. Will something happen now? After Sandy Hook, I said absolutely, we're going to come together. We did not. We did not. And I want to just close with this.” - emphasizing frustration; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): 197 | appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the first text of the fifth unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Refers to the AWB and work of Sen. Feinstein and supports her in her fight for change in gun legislation. References to own texts: none

198 |

Unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015) Securitizing actor: Hillary Clinton (D), gun control advocate Date: December 4, 2015 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Campaign event in Fort Dodge, IA Source: Merica, D. (2015, December 7). Clinton defends pushing gun control amid San Bernardino terror probe. CNN Politics. Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com/2015/12/04/politics/hillary-clinton-guns-terror/.

Now, I personally believe that we have to do more to try to identify and prevent anyone who is a, either, committed jihadist terrorist or a person who wishes to become one from getting access to the weapons of war in order to whatever terrible crime they are planning. That is why I disagree with the vote taken yesterday in the Congress.

Republicans would not pass a law prohibiting anyone on the no-fly list from buying a weapon in America. Now, from my perspective, if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a weapon. And at this point, there is no law that would tell any legitimate gun seller ‘don’t sell it to this person, because we’ve got them on the watch list”. So, what I have outlined, comprehensive background checks, closing the gun show loophole, closing the online loophole and the so-called Charleston loophole and repealing the absolute immunity for gun makers and sellers, is supported not only by 92% of the American people, but 83% of gun owners, who don’t want guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people, of stalkers, domestic abusers, or terrorists.

So, we have got to come together in our country to try to be smart about this and can certainly do it in a way that is consistent with the Constitution. So, I am going to continue to advocate for smart, sensible gun safety measures and I will continue to advocate to prevent people on the no-fly list from being able to buy a weapon.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Terrorism (jihadi terrorism) and mass shootings (in general and in specific: Charleston church shooting)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that more needs to be done to prevent terrorists from getting guns. Commissive: Yes, she commits to continuing advocacy to have sensible gun laws and to prevent people that are on the no-fly list from being able to buy a weapon. Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings none

199 |

Metaphors “Now, I personally believe that we have to do more to try to identify and prevent anyone who is a, either, committed jihadist terrorist or a person who wishes to become one from getting access to the weapons of war in order to whatever terrible crime they are planning.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; scare the audience; creating an outgroup (of terrorist) “Republicans would not pass a law prohibiting anyone on the no-fly list from buying a weapon in America.” - creating an outgroup (of Republicans who do not pass this legislation); emphasizing frustration “Now, from my perspective, if you are too dangerous to fly, you are too dangerous to buy a weapon.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; creating an outgroup (of people on the no-fly list) “(…) closing the gun show loophole, closing the online loophole and the so-called Charleston loophole (…)” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “(…) who don’t want guns falling into the hands of mentally ill people, of stalkers, domestic abusers, or terrorists.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; creating an outgroup (of possible perpetrators of mass shootings and terrorists) “(…) I will continue to advocate to prevent people on the no-fly list from being able to buy a weapon.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; creating an outgroup (of people on the no-fly list) Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions “And at this point, there is no law that would tell any legitimate gun seller ‘don’t sell it to this person, because we’ve got them on the watch list”.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup (of Republicans on the one hand and on terrorists, possible perpetrators of mass shootings and people on the no-fly list on the other hand) remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation 200 | showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the third text of the fifth unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Refers to a couple of legislative proposals that were also stated in previous texts, like preventing people on the no-fly list from buying a gun and solving the gun show loophole. References to own texts: none

201 |

Unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015) Securitizing actor: President Obama (D), gun control advocate Date: December 5, 2015 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Weekly Presidential Address, White House Source: The White House. (2015, December 5). Weekly Presidential Address. Retrieved from http://www.c-span.org/video/?401681-1/weekly-presidential-address.

Hi, everybody. This weekend, our hearts are with the people of San Bernardino—another American community shattered by unspeakable violence. We salute the first responders— the police, the SWAT teams, the EMTs—who responded so quickly, with such courage, and saved lives. We pray for the injured as they fight to recover from their wounds.

Most of all, we stand with 14 families whose hearts are broken. We’re learning more about their loved ones—the men and women, the beautiful lives, that were lost. They were doing what so many of us do this time of year—enjoying the holidays. Celebrating with each other. Rejoicing in the bonds of friendship and community that bind us together, as Americans. Their deaths are an absolute tragedy, not just for San Bernardino, but for our country.

We’re also learning more about the killers. And we’re working to get a full picture of their motives—why they committed these revolting acts. It’s important to let the investigators do their job. We need to know all the facts. And at my direction, federal law enforcement is helping in every way that they can. We’re going to get to the bottom of this.

It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror. And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years—the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies. We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people—around the world and in our country—to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors. And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us—government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders—need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.

More broadly, this tragedy reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power, together, to keep our communities safe. We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons—weapons of war—to kill as many people as they could. It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.

For example, right now, people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to

202 | buy a gun. And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now. We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but—at a bare minimum—we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.

Today in San Bernardino, investigators are searching for answers. Across our country, our law enforcement professionals are tireless. They’re working around the clock—as always— to protect our communities. As President, my highest priority is the security and safety of the American people. This is work that should unite us all—as Americans—so that we’re doing everything in our power to defend our country. That’s how we can honor the lives we lost in San Bernardino. That’s how we can send a message to all those who would try to hurt us. We are Americans. We will uphold our values—a free and open society. We are strong. And we are resilient. And we will not be terrorized.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: San Bernardino) and terrorism.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that if you are on the no-fly list, you should not be allowed to buy a gun. Commissive: No. Expressive: Yes, expresses how the San Bernardino shooting is a tragedy for the country. Directive: Yes, invites and insists that all of us keep working together to prevent people to fall victim to hateful ideologies. Also insists that Congress closing the no0fly list loophole. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “We’re learning more about their loved ones—the men and women, the beautiful lives, that were lost. They were doing what so many of us do this time of year—enjoying the holidays. Celebrating with each other. Rejoicing in the bonds of friendship and community that bind us together, as Americans.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; uniting/creating a community “We’re also learning more about the killers. And we’re working to get a full picture of their motives—why they committed these revolting acts. It’s important to let the investigators do their job. We need to know all the facts. And at my direction, federal law enforcement is helping in every way that they can. We’re going to get to the bottom of this.” – emphasizing abnormality of event; reassuring the audience “It is entirely possible that these two attackers were radicalized to commit this act of terror.” – demonising offender(s) “We know that the killers in San Bernardino used military-style assault weapons— weapons of war—to kill as many people as they could.” – demonising offender(s); scare the

203 | audience; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “Today in San Bernardino, investigators are searching for answers.” - reassuring the audience; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Metaphors “And if so, it would underscore a threat we’ve been focused on for years—the danger of people succumbing to violent extremist ideologies. We know that ISIL and other terrorist groups are actively encouraging people—around the world and in our country—to commit terrible acts of violence, often times as lone wolf actors. “ – scare the audience; showing vulnerability; creating an outgroup (of terrorists) “More broadly, this tragedy reminds us of our obligation to do everything in our power, together, to keep our communities safe.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “It’s another tragic reminder that here in America it’s way too easy for dangerous people to get their hands on a gun.” – scare the audience; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “(…) people on the No-Fly list can walk into a store and buy a gun. That is insane. If you’re too dangerous to board a plane, you’re too dangerous, by definition, to buy a gun.” – scare the audience; showing vulnerability; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; creating an outgroup (of people on the no-fly list) “We may not be able to prevent every tragedy, but—at a bare minimum—we shouldn’t be making it so easy for potential terrorists or criminals to get their hands on a gun that they could use against Americans.” - showing vulnerability; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; creating an outgroup (of terrorists and criminals) Analogies none Emotions “Their deaths are an absolute tragedy, not just for San Bernardino, but for our country.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; uniting/creating a community Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “This weekend, our hearts are with the people of San Bernardino—another American community shattered by unspeakable violence. “ – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; uniting; evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing abnormality of event; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “Most of all, we stand with 14 families whose hearts are broken.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; uniting; evoke emotional reaction Interactions “We salute the first responders—the police, the SWAT teams, the EMTs—who responded so quickly, with such courage, and saved lives. We pray for the injured as they fight to recover from their wounds.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims “We’re also learning more about the killers. And we’re working to get a full picture of their motives—why they committed these revolting acts. It’s important to let the investigators do 204 | their job. We need to know all the facts. And at my direction, federal law enforcement is helping in every way that they can. We’re going to get to the bottom of this.” – reassuring the audience “And even as we work to prevent attacks, all of us—government, law enforcement, communities, faith leaders—need to work together to prevent people from falling victim to these hateful ideologies.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “And so I’m calling on Congress to close this loophole, now.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “That’s how we can honor the lives we lost in San Bernardino. That’s how we can send a message to all those who would try to hurt us. We are Americans. We will uphold our values—a free and open society. We are strong. And we are resilient. And we will not be terrorized.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; uniting/creating a community; appealing to existent community; creating an outgroup (of terrorists)

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the fourth text of the fifth unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: No direct references. Again, refers to the no-fly list loophole. References to own texts: none

205 |

Unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015) Securitizing actor: Sen. Ted Cruz (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: December 3, 2015 Type of act: Interview Location/means of communication: Breitbart News Source: Hawkins, A. (2015, December 3). Exclusive – Ted Cruz Reacts To San Bernardino: Now, More Than Ever, Americans Must Be Armed. Breitbart. Retrieved from http://www.breitbart.com/2016-presidential-race/2015/12/03/exclusive-ted-cruz-reacts- san-bernardino-now-ever-americans-must-armed/.

Unfortunately, the goal of both President Obama and Hillary Clinton, is to consistently–at every turn–to look to weaken the constitutional rights of American citizens. And in particular, to undermine our constitutional right to keep and bear arms. You don’t get rid of the bad guys by getting rid of our guns. You get rid of the bad guys by using our guns. And, rather than respond to radical Islam and terrorism with a commitment from the president to keep this nation safe– to kill the terrorists–instead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to even utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”

The gun control push illustrates the misguided priorities of President Obama and Hillary Clinton. They refuse to stand up and do what is necessary to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, to defeat ISIS, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Instead, they remain obsessed with disarming the American citizenry, of stripping us of our fundamental right to protect our homes, our lives, and our families.

I would note that the calls from liberals for more and more gun controls in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings ignores the fact that California already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country–so their policies and solutions have already been implemented in California. And to the surprise of no one, the laws failed to prevent this horrific attack.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: San Bernardino attacks) and Islamic terrorism.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that Obama and Clinton consistently try to weaken constitutional rights of American citizens and do not try to defeat Islamic terrorism. And the belief that stricter gun laws are ineffective. Commissive: No. Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings

206 |

“And, rather than respond to radical Islam and terrorism with a commitment from the president to keep this nation safe–to kill the terrorists–instead, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton refuse to even utter the words “radical Islamic terrorism.”” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; creating an outgroup (of Obama and Hillary Clinton and their fellow liberals, who fail to take effective action and only undermine constitutional rights) “They refuse to stand up and do what is necessary to defeat radical Islamic terrorism, to defeat ISIS, to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; creating an outgroup (of Obama and Hillary Clinton and their fellow liberals, who fail to take effective action and only undermine constitutional rights) “I would note that the calls from liberals for more and more gun controls in the wake of the San Bernardino shootings ignores the fact that California already has some of the strictest gun control laws in the country–so their policies and solutions have already been implemented in California.” - showing that proposed legislation or regulation is not effective; emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians Metaphors “You don’t get rid of the bad guys by getting rid of our guns. You get rid of the bad guys by using our guns.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is not effective; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “And to the surprise of no one, the laws failed to prevent this horrific attack.” - showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective; evoke emotional reaction Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public 207 | emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the second text of the fifth unit of analysis Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Sen. Cruz reacts to various texts of President Obama and Hillary Clinton where they, in his view, try to weaken constitutional rights of American citizens instead of doing what really matters, namely defeating Islamic terrorism. References to own texts: None.

208 |

Unit of analysis: San Bernardino attack (December 2, 2015) Securitizing actor: Donald Trump (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: December 3, 2015 Type of act: Interview Location/means of communication: Campaign Rally in Spencer, IA Source: Flores, R., and Atwood, K. (2015, December 5). Trump: San Bernardino victims “could’ve protected themselves if they had guns”. CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-san-bernardino-victims-couldve-protected- themselves-if-they-had-guns/.

DONALD TRUMP: Well, I feel very strongly that people in this country and in, actually, the world need protection. If you look at Paris, they didn’t have guns and they were slaughtered. If you look at what happened in California, they didn’t have guns, they were slaughtered. So, I think it would have a lot better if they had guns in that room, somebody to protect. They could have protected themselves if they had guns.

REPORTER: The editorial said in some ways all shooting sprees are acts of terrorism. Do you agree with that? What’s your thought on that?

DONALD TRUMP: Well, this was a terrorism. This one was terrorism.

REPORTER: But, all shooting sprees?

DONALD TRUMP: I don’t know. You can look at it that way. But, this was certainly, when you look at this, this was extremism, Muslim extremists. And this is a real problem. And this is certainly terrorism at a high level.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (San Bernardino attack) terrorism (November 2015 Paris attacks).

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, belief that the victims could have protected themselves with guns and that guns will give protection in general to these kind of acts. Furthermore, belief that the San Bernardino shooting was an act of terrorism, of Muslim extremism. Commissive: No. Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “If you look at Paris, they didn’t have guns and they were slaughtered.” – scare the audience; showing vulnerability

209 |

“If you look at what happened in California, they didn’t have guns, they were slaughtered. So, I think it would have a lot better if they had guns in that room, somebody to protect. They could have protected themselves if they had guns.” – scare the audience; showing vulnerability “Well, this was a terrorism. This one was terrorism.” – creating an outgroup (of terrorists) “But, this was certainly, when you look at this, this was extremism, Muslim extremists. And this is a real problem. And this is certainly terrorism at a high level.” - creating an outgroup (of terrorists and Muslim extremists); scare the audience Metaphors none Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: Chronologically, this is the last text of the fifth unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: none References to own texts: none

210 |

F. Texts of the sixth unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016)

Unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016) Securitizing actor: President Obama (D), gun control advocate Date: January 5, 2016 Type of act: Speech Location/means of communication: Executive Actions on Guns, White House Source: The White House, Office of the Press Secretary. (2016, January 5). Remarks by the President on Common-Sense Gun Safety Reform. Retrieved from https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2016/01/05/remarks-president-common- sense-gun-safety-reform.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you. Thank you, everybody. Please have a seat. Thank you. (Applause.) Thank you so much.

Mark, I want to thank you for your introduction. I still remember the first time we met, the time we spent together, and the conversation we had about Daniel. And that changed me that day. And my hope, earnestly, has been that it would change the country.

Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many. AUDIENCE MEMBER: Too many.

THE PRESIDENT: Thanks to a great medical team and the love of her husband, Mark, my dear friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, survived. She’s here with us today, with her wonderful mom. (Applause.) Thanks to a great medical team, her wonderful husband, Mark - - who, by the way, the last time I met with Mark -- this is just a small aside -- you may know Mark’s twin brother is in outer space. (Laughter.) He came to the office, and I said, how often are you talking to him? And he says, well, I usually talk to him every day, but the call was coming in right before the meeting so I think I may have not answered his call -- (laughter) -- which made me feel kind of bad. (Laughter.) That’s a long-distance call. (Laughter.) So I told him if his brother, Scott, is calling today, that he should take it. (Laughter.) Turn the ringer on. (Laughter.)

I was there with Gabby when she was still in the hospital, and we didn’t think necessarily at that point that she was going to survive. And that visit right before a memorial -- about an hour later Gabby first opened her eyes. And I remember talking to mom about that. But I know the pain that she and her family have endured these past five years, and the rehabilitation and the work and the effort to recover from shattering injuries.

And then I think of all the Americans who aren’t as fortunate. Every single year, more than 30,000 Americans have their lives cut short by guns -- 30,000. Suicides. Domestic 211 | violence. Gang shootouts. Accidents. Hundreds of thousands of Americans have lost brothers and sisters, or buried their own children. Many have had to learn to live with a disability, or learned to live without the love of their life.

A number of those people are here today. They can tell you some stories. In this room right here, there are a lot of stories. There’s a lot of heartache. There’s a lot of resilience, there’s a lot of strength, but there’s also a lot of pain. And this is just a small sample.

The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people. We are not inherently more prone to violence. But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn't happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close. And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.

And instead of thinking about how to solve the problem, this has become one of our most polarized, partisan debates -- despite the fact that there’s a general consensus in America about what needs to be done. That’s part of the reason why, on Thursday, I’m going to hold a town hall meeting in Virginia on gun violence. Because my goal here is to bring good people on both sides of this issue together for an open discussion.

I’m not on the ballot again. I’m not looking to score some points. I think we can disagree without impugning other people’s motives or without being disagreeable. We don't need to be talking past one another. But we do have to feel a sense of urgency about it. In Dr. King’s words, we need to feel the “fierce urgency of now.” Because people are dying. And the constant excuses for inaction no longer do, no longer suffice.

That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one. (Applause.) To prove that the vast majority of Americans, even if our voices aren’t always the loudest or most extreme, care enough about a little boy like Daniel to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children.

Now, I want to be absolutely clear at the start -- and I’ve said this over and over again, this also becomes routine, there is a ritual about this whole thing that I have to do -- I believe in the Second Amendment. It’s there written on the paper. It guarantees a right to bear arms. No matter how many times people try to twist my words around -- I taught constitutional law, I know a little about this -- (applause) -- I get it. But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.

I mean, think about it. We all believe in the First Amendment, the guarantee of free speech, but we accept that you can’t yell “fire” in a theater. We understand there are some constraints on our freedom in order to protect innocent people. We cherish our right to privacy, but we accept that you have to go through metal detectors before being allowed to board a plane. It’s not because people like doing that, but we understand that that’s part of the price of living in a civilized society.

212 |

And what’s often ignored in this debate is that a majority of gun owners actually agree. A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale.

Today, background checks are required at gun stores. If a father wants to teach his daughter how to hunt, he can walk into a gun store, get a background check, purchase his weapon safely and responsibly. This is not seen as an infringement on the Second Amendment. Contrary to the claims of what some gun rights proponents have suggested, this hasn’t been the first step in some slippery slope to mass confiscation. Contrary to claims of some presidential candidates, apparently, before this meeting, this is not a plot to take away everybody’s guns. You pass a background check; you purchase a firearm.

The problem is some gun sellers have been operating under a different set of rules. A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked. A recent study found that about one in 30 people looking to buy guns on one website had criminal records -- one out of 30 had a criminal record. We’re talking about individuals convicted of serious crimes -- aggravated assault, domestic violence, robbery, illegal gun possession. People with lengthy criminal histories buying deadly weapons all too easily. And this was just one website within the span of a few months.

So we’ve created a system in which dangerous people are allowed to play by a different set of rules than a responsible gun owner who buys his or her gun the right way and subjects themselves to a background check. That doesn’t make sense. Everybody should have to abide by the same rules. Most Americans and gun owners agree. And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.

Two United States Senators -– Joe Manchin, a Democrat from West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, a Republican from Pennsylvania, both gun owners, both strong defenders of our Second Amendment rights, both with “A” grades from the NRA –- that’s hard to get -- worked together in good faith, consulting with folks like our Vice President, who has been a champion on this for a long time, to write a common-sense compromise bill that would have required virtually everyone who buys a gun to get a background check. That was it. Pretty common-sense stuff. Ninety percent of Americans supported that idea. Ninety percent of Democrats in the Senate voted for that idea. But it failed because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate voted against that idea.

How did this become such a partisan issue? Republican President George W. Bush once said, “I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.” Senator John McCain introduced a bipartisan measure to address the gun show loophole, saying, “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.” Even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. And by the way, most of its members still do. Most Republican voters still do.

How did we get here? How did we get to the place where people think requiring a comprehensive background check means taking away people’s guns? 213 |

Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying. I reject that thinking. (Applause.) We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.

Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill -- with a knife -- a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon. We maybe can’t save everybody, but we could save some. Just as we don’t prevent all traffic accidents but we take steps to try to reduce traffic accidents.

As Ronald Reagan once said, if mandatory background checks could save more lives, “it would be well worth making it the law of the land.” The bill before Congress three years ago met that test. Unfortunately, too many senators failed theirs. (Applause.)

In fact, we know that background checks make a difference. After Connecticut passed a law requiring background checks and gun safety courses, gun deaths decreased by 40 percent -- 40 percent. (Applause.) Meanwhile, since Missouri repealed a law requiring comprehensive background checks and purchase permits, gun deaths have increased to almost 50 percent higher than the national average. One study found, unsurprisingly, that criminals in Missouri now have easier access to guns.

And the evidence tells us that in states that require background checks, law-abiding Americans don’t find it any harder to purchase guns whatsoever. Their guns have not been confiscated. Their rights have not been infringed.

And that’s just the information we have access to. With more research, we could further improve gun safety. Just as with more research, we’ve reduced traffic fatalities enormously over the last 30 years. We do research when cars, food, medicine, even toys harm people so that we make them safer. And you know what -- research, science -- those are good things. They work. (Laughter and applause.) They do.

But think about this. When it comes to an inherently deadly weapon -- nobody argues that guns are potentially deadly -- weapons that kill tens of thousands of Americans every year, Congress actually voted to make it harder for public health experts to conduct research into gun violence; made it harder to collect data and facts and develop strategies to reduce gun violence. Even after San Bernardino, they’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons. That’s not right. That can't be right. So the gun lobby may be holding Congress hostage right now, but they cannot hold America hostage. (Applause.) We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom. (Applause.)

Now, I want to be clear. Congress still needs to act. The folks in this room will not rest until Congress does. (Applause.) Because once Congress gets on board with common-sense gun safety measures we can reduce gun violence a whole lot more. But we also can't wait. Until 214 | we have a Congress that’s in line with the majority of Americans, there are actions within my legal authority that we can take to help reduce gun violence and save more lives -– actions that protect our rights and our kids.

After Sandy Hook, Joe and I worked together with our teams and we put forward a whole series of executive actions to try to tighten up the existing rules and systems that we had in place. But today, we want to take it a step further. So let me outline what we're going to be doing.

Number one, anybody in the business of selling firearms must get a license and conduct background checks, or be subject to criminal prosecutions. (Applause.) It doesn’t matter whether you’re doing it over the Internet or at a gun show. It’s not where you do it, but what you do.

We’re also expanding background checks to cover violent criminals who try to buy some of the most dangerous firearms by hiding behind trusts and corporations and various cutouts. We're also taking steps to make the background check system more efficient. Under the guidance of Jim Comey and the FBI, our Deputy Director Tom Brandon at ATF, we’re going to hire more folks to process applications faster, and we’re going to bring an outdated background check system into the 21st century. (Applause.)

And these steps will actually lead to a smoother process for law-abiding gun owners, a smoother process for responsible gun dealers, a stronger process for protecting the people from -- the public from dangerous people. So that's number one.

Number two, we’re going to do everything we can to ensure the smart and effective enforcement of gun safety laws that are already on the books, which means we're going to add 200 more ATF agents and investigators. We're going to require firearms dealers to report more lost or stolen guns on a timely basis. We're working with advocates to protect victims of domestic abuse from gun violence, where too often -- (applause) -- where too often, people are not getting the protection that they need.

Number three, we're going to do more to help those suffering from mental illness get the help that they need. (Applause.) High-profile mass shootings tend to shine a light on those few mentally unstable people who inflict harm on others. But the truth is, is that nearly two in three gun deaths are from suicides. So a lot of our work is to prevent people from hurting themselves.

That’s why we made sure that the Affordable Care Act -- also known as Obamacare -- (laughter and applause) -- that law made sure that treatment for mental health was covered the same as treatment for any other illness. And that’s why we’re going to invest $500 million to expand access to treatment across the country. (Applause.)

It’s also why we’re going to ensure that federal mental health records are submitted to the background check system, and remove barriers that prevent states from reporting relevant information. If we can continue to de-stigmatize mental health issues, get folks proper care, and fill gaps in the background check system, then we can spare more families the pain of losing a loved one to suicide.

215 |

And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts. Put your money where your mouth is. (Applause.)

Number four, we’re going to boost gun safety technology. Today, many gun injuries and deaths are the result of legal guns that were stolen or misused or discharged accidentally. In 2013 alone, more than 500 people lost their lives to gun accidents –- and that includes 30 children younger than five years old. In the greatest, most technologically advanced nation on Earth, there is no reason for this. We need to develop new technologies that make guns safer. If we can set it up so you can’t unlock your phone unless you’ve got the right fingerprint, why can’t we do the same thing for our guns? (Applause.) If there’s an app that can help us find a missing tablet -- which happens to me often the older I get -- (laughter) -- if we can do it for your iPad, there’s no reason we can’t do it with a stolen gun. If a child can’t open a bottle of aspirin, we should make sure that they can’t pull a trigger on a gun. (Applause.) Right? So we’re going to advance research. We’re going to work with the private sector to update firearms technology.

And some gun retailers are already stepping up by refusing to finalize a purchase without a complete background check, or by refraining from selling semi-automatic weapons or high- capacity magazines. And I hope that more retailers and more manufacturers join them -- because they should care as much as anybody about a product that now kills almost as many Americans as car accidents.

I make this point because none of us can do this alone. I think Mark made that point earlier. All of us should be able to work together to find a balance that declares the rest of our rights are also important -- Second Amendment rights are important, but there are other rights that we care about as well. And we have to be able to balance them. Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. (Applause.) And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. (Applause.) They had rights, too. (Applause.)

Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.

Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad. And by the way, it happens on the streets of Chicago every day. (Applause.)

So all of us need to demand a Congress brave enough to stand up to the gun lobby’s lies. All of us need to stand up and protect its citizens. All of us need to demand governors and legislatures and businesses do their part to make our communities safer. We need the wide majority of responsible gun owners who grieve with us every time this happens and feel like your views are not being properly represented to join with us to demand something better. (Applause.)

216 |

And we need voters who want safer gun laws, and who are disappointed in leaders who stand in their way, to remember come election time. (Applause.)

I mean, some of this is just simple math. Yes, the gun lobby is loud and it is organized in defense of making it effortless for guns to be available for anybody, any time. Well, you know what, the rest of us, we all have to be just as passionate. We have to be just as organized in defense of our kids. This is not that complicated. The reason Congress blocks laws is because they want to win elections. And if you make it hard for them to win an election if they block those laws, they’ll change course, I promise you. (Applause.)

And, yes, it will be hard, and it won’t happen overnight. It won’t happen during this Congress. It won’t happen during my presidency. But a lot of things don’t happen overnight. A woman’s right to vote didn’t happen overnight. The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight. LGBT rights -- that was decades’ worth of work. So just because it’s hard, that’s no excuse not to try.

And if you have any doubt as to why you should feel that “fierce urgency of now,” think about what happened three weeks ago. Zaevion Dobson was a sophomore at Fulton High School in Knoxville, Tennessee. He played football; beloved by his classmates and his teachers. His own mayor called him one of their city’s success stories. The week before Christmas, he headed to a friend’s house to play video games. He wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. He hadn’t made a bad decision. He was exactly where any other kid would be. Your kid. My kids. And then gunmen started firing. And Zaevion -- who was in high school, hadn’t even gotten started in life -- dove on top of three girls to shield them from the bullets. And he was shot in the head. And the girls were spared. He gave his life to save theirs –- an act of heroism a lot bigger than anything we should ever expect from a 15-year-old. “Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends.”

We are not asked to do what Zaevion Dobson did. We’re not asked to have shoulders that big; a heart that strong; reactions that quick. I’m not asking people to have that same level of courage, or sacrifice, or love. But if we love our kids and care about their prospects, and if we love this country and care about its future, then we can find the courage to vote. We can find the courage to get mobilized and organized. We can find the courage to cut through all the noise and do what a sensible country would do.

That’s what we’re doing today. And tomorrow, we should do more. And we should do more the day after that. And if we do, we’ll leave behind a nation that’s stronger than the one we inherited and worthy of the sacrifice of a young man like Zaevion. (Applause.)

Thank you very much, everybody. God bless you. Thank you. God bless America. (Applause.)

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shooting (in general and in specific: San Bernardino attack, 2012 Aurora shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, 2011 Tucson shooting, Wisconsin

217 |

Sikh temple shooting, Columbine High School massacre, and many more), domestic terrorism and racial segregation.

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that Second Amendment rights are not harmed, belief that background checks reduce gun violence. Commissive: Yes, several executive actions to tighten up the existing rules and system that was in place regarding gun control. Expressive: Yes, e.g. anger about the death of these kids Directive: Yes, stating that all of us need to be brave enough to stand up against the gun lobby, so inviting to take action. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings “Five years ago this week, a sitting member of Congress and 18 others were shot at, at a supermarket in Tucson, Arizona. It wasn’t the first time I had to talk to the nation in response to a mass shooting, nor would it be the last. Fort Hood. Binghamton. Aurora. Oak Creek. Newtown. The Navy Yard. Santa Barbara. Charleston. San Bernardino. Too many.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “And that’s what we tried to change three years ago, after 26 Americans -– including 20 children -– were murdered at Sandy Hook Elementary.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “Each time this comes up, we are fed the excuse that common-sense reforms like background checks might not have stopped the last massacre, or the one before that, or the one before that, so why bother trying.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration “Even after San Bernardino, they’ve refused to make it harder for terror suspects who can’t get on a plane to buy semi-automatic weapons.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration “After Sandy Hook, Joe and I worked together with our teams and we put forward a whole series of executive actions to try to tighten up the existing rules and systems that we had in place.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; reassuring the audience “High-profile mass shootings tend to shine a light on those few mentally unstable people who inflict harm on others.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; creating an outgroup (of mentally ill people that commit a mass shooting) “(…) think about what happened three weeks ago. Zaevion Dobson was a sophomore at Fulton High School in Knoxville, Tennessee. He played football; beloved by his classmates and his teachers. His own mayor called him one of their city’s success stories. The week before Christmas, he headed to a friend’s house to play video games. He wasn’t in the wrong place at the wrong time. He hadn’t made a bad decision. He was exactly where any other kid would be. Your kid. My kids. And then gunmen started firing. And Zaevion -- who was in high school, hadn’t even gotten started in life -- dove on top of three 218 | girls to shield them from the bullets. And he was shot in the head. And the girls were spared. He gave his life to save theirs –- an act of heroism a lot bigger than anything we should ever expect from a 15-year-old. “Greater love hath no man than this that a man lay down his life for his friends.”” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction Metaphors “The United States of America is not the only country on Earth with violent or dangerous people. We are not inherently more prone to violence. But we are the only advanced country on Earth that sees this kind of mass violence erupt with this kind of frequency. It doesn't happen in other advanced countries. It’s not even close.” – emphasizing abnormality of event; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “But I also believe that we can find ways to reduce gun violence consistent with the Second Amendment.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; reassuring the audience (about the fact that gun control measures will not hurt Second Amendment rights) “A majority of gun owners agree that we can respect the Second Amendment while keeping an irresponsible, law-breaking feud from inflicting harm on a massive scale.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; reassuring the audience (about the fact that gun control measures will not hurt Second Amendment rights) “A violent felon can buy the exact same weapon over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective “Republican President George W. Bush once said, “I believe in background checks at gun shows or anywhere to make sure that guns don’t get into the hands of people that shouldn’t have them.” Senator John McCain introduced a bipartisan measure to address the gun show loophole, saying, “We need this amendment because criminals and terrorists have exploited and are exploiting this very obvious loophole in our gun safety laws.”” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective “We know we can’t stop every act of violence, every act of evil in the world. But maybe we could try to stop one act of evil, one act of violence.” – evoke emotional reaction; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; appealing to existent community “We do not have to accept this carnage as the price of freedom.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration; appealing to existent community “The liberation of African Americans didn’t happen overnight.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting/creating a community Analogies none Emotions “A number of those people are here today. They can tell you some stories. In this room right here, there are a lot of stories. There’s a lot of heartache. There’s a lot of resilience, 219 | there’s a lot of strength, but there’s also a lot of pain. And this is just a small sample.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; uniting/creating a community “Every time I think about those kids it gets me mad.” - remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests “And then I think of all the Americans who aren’t as fortunate.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events “To prove that the vast majority of Americans, even if our voices aren’t always the loudest or most extreme, care enough about a little boy like Daniel to come together and take common-sense steps to save lives and protect more of our children.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “Because our right to worship freely and safely –- that right was denied to Christians in Charleston, South Carolina. (Applause.) And that was denied Jews in Kansas City. And that was denied Muslims in Chapel Hill, and Sikhs in Oak Creek. (Applause.) They had rights, too. (Applause.) Our right to peaceful assembly -– that right was robbed from moviegoers in Aurora and Lafayette. Our unalienable right to life, and liberty, and the pursuit of happiness -– those rights were stripped from college students in Blacksburg and Santa Barbara, and from high schoolers at Columbine, and from first-graders in Newtown. First-graders. And from every family who never imagined that their loved one would be taken from our lives by a bullet from a gun.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; showing an infringement upon freedom and liberties Interactions “Mark, I want to thank you for your introduction. I still remember the first time we met, the time we spent together, and the conversation we had about Daniel. And that changed me that day. And my hope, earnestly, has been that it would change the country.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; appealing to existent community “Thanks to a great medical team and the love of her husband, Mark, my dear friend and colleague, Gabby Giffords, survived. She’s here with us today, with her wonderful mom.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “I was there with Gabby when she was still in the hospital, and we didn’t think necessarily at that point that she was going to survive. And that visit right before a memorial -- about an hour later Gabby first opened her eyes. And I remember talking to mom about that. But I know the pain that she and her family have endured these past five years, and the rehabilitation and the work and the effort to recover from shattering injuries.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction “And as I’ve said before, somehow we’ve become numb to it and we start thinking that this is normal.” – emphasizing abnormality of event; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation

220 |

“That’s why we’re here today. Not to debate the last mass shooting, but to do something to try to prevent the next one.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting/creating a community “Some of you may recall, at the same time that Sandy Hook happened, a disturbed person in China took a knife and tried to kill -- with a knife -- a bunch of children in China. But most of them survived because he didn’t have access to a powerful weapon.” – remembrance and sympathizing with victims; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability “And for those in Congress who so often rush to blame mental illness for mass shootings as a way of avoiding action on guns, here’s your chance to support these efforts.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration; uniting/creating a community; emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians (to blame mentally ill) “We are not asked to do what Zaevion Dobson did. We’re not asked to have shoulders that big; a heart that strong; reactions that quick. I’m not asking people to have that same level of courage, or sacrifice, or love.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; evoke emotional reaction; appealing to existent community “And if we do, we’ll leave behind a nation that’s stronger than the one we inherited and worthy of the sacrifice of a young man like Zaevion.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; remembrance and sympathizing with victims; appealing to existent community

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup (of mentally ill that commit mass shootings) remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective/sufficient showing an infringement upon freedom, liberties and rights (other than Second Amendment rights) emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians (to blame mentally ill)/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security (of Second Amendment rights) downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts:

221 |

This is the only speech act of the sixth unit of analysis. The other texts are programs of presidential candidates and do not have a date. Therefore, there is no real chronological order in this unit of analysis. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Direct reference to Manchin-Toomey text. And direct reaction to Cruz and Trump as presidential candidates who state that it gun control is about taking away guns from citizens, a constitutional right. Furthermore, various indirect references to many arguments and facts that have been used in the discourses of other texts. References to own texts: Referring directly and indirectly to various speeches of his own, using the same arguments, same examples.

222 |

Unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016) Securitizing actor: Hillary Clinton (D), gun control advocate Date: 2016 Type of act: Campaign vision Location/means of communication: Campaign site of Hillary Clinton Source: Clinton, H. (2016). Gun violence prevention: It is past time we act on gun violence. Retrieved from https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/gun-violence-prevention/.

Gun violence prevention It is past time we act on gun violence.

Hillary will:  Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.  Hold irresponsible dealers and manufacturers accountable.  Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill. “I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.” HILLARY, AUGUST 27, 2015

While gun ownership is part of the fabric of many law-abiding communities, too many families in America have suffered from gun violence. About 33,000 Americans are killed by guns each year. That is unacceptable. It is a rebuke to this nation we love. That’s why Hillary supports sensible action to address gun violence, including comprehensive background checks, cracking down on illegal gun traffickers, holding dealers and manufacturers accountable when they endanger Americans, and keeping guns out of the hands of domestic abusers and stalkers. Read this: Why Mark & I are supporting Hillary Clinton for president, by Gabby Giffords

Hillary has a record of advocating for commonsense approaches to reduce gun violence:  As first lady, she co-convened a White House Summit on School Violence after the Columbine tragedy. She also strongly defended the Brady Bill, which instituted federal background checks on some gun sales.  As senator, she co-sponsored and voted for legislation to close the gun show loophole by requiring criminal background checks on all transactions taking place at events that sell firearms.  She voted against the dangerous immunity protections Congress provided gun dealers and manufacturers that prevent victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable.  She also co-sponsored and voted for legislation to extend and reinstate the assault weapons ban. As president, Hillary will increase the number of gun sales subject to background checks:  Comprehensive federal background check legislation. Background checks reduce gun trafficking, reduce the lethality of domestic violence, and reduce unlawful gun transfers to dangerous individuals. It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary

223 |

School. But Hillary is not giving up—she will continue to fight for legislation to build on the Brady Bill’s success.  Closing the “Charleston Loophole.” Hillary will push Congress to close the loophole that allows a gun sale to proceed without a completed background check if that check has not been completed within three days. This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.  Tightening the gun show and Internet sales loophole if Congress won’t. If Congress refuses to act, Hillary will take administrative action to require that any person attempting to sell a significant number of guns abide by the same commonsense rules that apply to gun stores—including requiring background checks on gun sales. To ensure that the safety of our communities is prioritized over the profits of the gun lobby, Hillary will also:  Repeal the gun industry’s unique immunity protection. Hillary believes the gun industry must be held accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns. Hillary will lead the charge to repeal the so-called “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act,” a dangerous law that prevents victims of gun violence from holding negligent manufacturers and dealers accountable for violence perpetrated with their guns.  Revoke the licenses of bad-actor dealers. Hillary believes we must do more to crack down on gun stores that flood our communities with illegal guns. As president, she will provide funding to increase inspections and aggressively enforce current law by revoking the licenses of dealers that knowingly supply straw purchasers and traffickers. Hillary will fight to keep guns out of the hands of domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill:  Support legislation to stop domestic abusers from buying and possessing guns. Although federal law generally prohibits domestic abusers from purchasing or possessing guns, this protection does not apply to people in dating relationships or convicted stalkers. Hillary will fight for legislation to prohibit all of these domestic abusers and stalkers from buying guns.  Make straw purchasing a federal crime. When an individual with a clean record buys a gun with the intention of giving it to a violent felon—only so that felon can avoid a background check—it should be a crime. Hillary will fight to make so-called “straw purchasing” a federal crime.  Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns. Hillary will fight to improve existing law prohibiting persons suffering from severe mental illness from purchasing or possessing a gun. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns.  Keep military-style weapons off our streets. Military-style assault weapons do not belong on our streets. They are a danger to law enforcement and to our communities. Hillary will work to keep assault weapons off our streets and supports reinstating the assault weapons ban.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: 2011 Tucson shooting, Columbine High School massacre, Charleston church shooting, Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting) and domestic terrorism. 224 |

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, it is a campaign program to prevent gun violence so it is full of beliefs Commissive: Yes, e.g. will fight to keep guns out of hands of dangerous people, etc. Expressive: Yes, she calls the failure of bipartisan legislation in Congress after Sandy Hook reprehensible. Directive: Yes, e.g. a phrase like ‘read this’ is directive. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings ““I don’t know how we keep seeing shooting after shooting, read about the people murdered because they went to Bible study or they went to the movies or they were just doing their job, and not finally say we’ve got to do something about this.”” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events; appealing to existent community “Why Mark & I are supporting Hillary Clinton for president, by Gabby Giffords” – evoke emotional reaction “As first lady, she co-convened a White House Summit on School Violence after the Columbine tragedy.” – uniting/creating a community “It is reprehensible that bipartisan legislation supporting background checks failed in Congress after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; emphasizing frustration; evoke anger “This loophole allowed the alleged Charleston shooter to purchase a gun even though he had a criminal record.” – showing vulnerability; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective “The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives should finalize its rulemaking to close loopholes in our laws and clarify that people involuntarily committed to outpatient treatment, such as the Virginia Tech shooter, are prohibited from buying guns.” - showing vulnerability; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation Metaphors “Strengthen background checks and close dangerous loopholes in the current system.” – showing vulnerability “Keep guns out of the hands of terrorists, domestic abusers, other violent criminals, and the severely mentally ill.” – scare the audience “she co-sponsored and voted for legislation to close the gun show loophole by requiring criminal background checks on all transactions taking place at events that sell firearms.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; uniting/creating a community “Closing the “Charleston Loophole.”” – showing vulnerability; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective

225 |

“Close loopholes that let persons suffering from severe mental illness purchase and possess guns.” - showing vulnerability; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that previous legislation or regulation was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: The publication date of this text is unknown. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: She refers to various pieces of legislation that she sponsored or supported, the Brady Bill and the AWB. References to own texts: She directly refers and quotes one of her texts.

226 |

Unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016) Securitizing actor: Sen. Ted Cruz (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: 2016 Type of act: Campaign vision Location/means of communication: Campaign site of Ted Cruz Source: Cruz, T. (2016). Second Amendment Rights: Protecting the Second Amendment Rights of Americans. Retrieved from https://www.tedcruz.org/issues/second-amendment-rights/.

PROTECTING THE SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS OF AMERICANS Citizens’ Second Amendment rights make us more safe, secure, and free. The Second Amendment is not simply about hunting or target practice. It’s about protecting our lives, families, and homes.

When citizens cease to have the right to defend ourselves, we cease to be free. And now, more than ever, as radical Islamic terrorists seek to attack Americans on our own soil, Americans’ right to protect our families and communities is all the more critical to our safety and freedom.

Ted Cruz has been a tireless defender of the Second Amendment. From successfully protecting law-abiding citizens’ Second Amendment rights at the Supreme Court to defeating legislation that sought to take away this right, Ted Cruz has always championed Americans’ right to keep and bear arms.

PROVEN RECORD Led the fight against Congress’ legislation to restrict the Second Amendment rights of law- abiding Americans.

Authored legislation to strengthen citizens’ Second Amendment rights and allow interstate firearms sales.

Defended 31 states in District of Columbia v. Heller where the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a ban on firearms in a 5-4 landmark decision.

Awarded the NRA’s 2010 Carter-Knight Freedom Fund, which “rewards exemplary activities in the support and protection of the right to Keep and Bear Arms” for his work in the Heller and McDonald cases.

Argued against unreasonable and burdensome gun restrictions before the U.S. Court of Appeals.

Recognized by NRA executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre who observed, “Ted Cruz is one of our nation’s leading defenders of the Second Amendment. For over a decade, Ted has fought tirelessly to defend our constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and his leadership was absolutely critical to our major victories before the U.S. Supreme Court.”

227 |

Endorsed by Gun Owners of America Chairman Tim Macy, who said “We need a stalwart defender of the Second Amendment in the White House, and Ted Cruz will help shoulder the burden of fighting against the gun grabbers dedicated to eviscerating the Second Amendment.”

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Radical Islamic terrorism (in general).

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. Second Amendment rights makes us more safe and protects lives, families and homes. Commissive: No. Expressive: No. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings none Metaphors “And now, more than ever, as radical Islamic terrorists seek to attack Americans on our own soil, Americans’ right to protect our families and communities is all the more critical to our safety and freedom.” - creating sense of urgency; scare the audience; showing vulnerability; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; uniting/creating a community Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability 228 | showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is/was not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: The publication date of this text is unknown. Reactions or references to texts of other actors: Refers to several cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald. References to own texts: Refers to his earlier efforts of fighting measures that are aimed at limiting Second Amendment rights, like the Senate hearing about the AWB.

229 |

Unit of analysis: Policy for the future (Early 2016) Securitizing actor: Donald Trump (R), gun rights/second amendment rights advocate Date: 2016 Type of act: Campaign vision Location/means of communication: Campaign site of Donald Trump Source: Trump, D.J. (2016). Protecting Our Second Amendment Rights Will Make America Great Again. Retrieved from https://www.donaldjtrump.com/positions/second- amendment-rights.

PROTECTING OUR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS WILL MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN Donald J. Trump on the Right to Keep and Bear Arms

The Second Amendment to our Constitution is clear. The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed upon. Period.

The Second Amendment guarantees a fundamental right that belongs to all law-abiding Americans. The Constitution doesn’t create that right – it ensures that the government can’t take it away. Our Founding Fathers knew, and our Supreme Court has upheld, that the Second Amendment’s purpose is to guarantee our right to defend ourselves and our families. This is about self-defense, plain and simple.

It’s been said that the Second Amendment is America’s first freedom. That’s because the Right to Keep and Bear Arms protects all our other rights. We are the only country in the world that has a Second Amendment. Protecting that freedom is imperative. Here’s how we will do that:

Enforce The Laws On The Books

We need to get serious about prosecuting violent criminals. The Obama administration’s record on that is abysmal. Violent crime in cities like Baltimore, Chicago and many others is out of control. Drug dealers and gang members are given a slap on the wrist and turned loose on the street. This needs to stop.

Several years ago there was a tremendous program in Richmond, Virginia called Project Exile. It said that if a violent felon uses a gun to commit a crime, you will be prosecuted in federal court and go to prison for five years – no parole or early release. Obama’s former Attorney General, Eric Holder, called that a “cookie cutter” program. That’s ridiculous. I call that program a success. Murders committed with guns in Richmond decreased by over 60% when Project Exile was in place – in the first two years of the program alone, 350 armed felons were taken off the street.

Why does that matter to law-abiding gun owners? Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns. We need to bring back and expand programs like Project Exile and get gang members and drug dealers off the street. When we do, crime will go down and our cities and communities will be safer places to live.

230 |

Here’s another important way to fight crime – empower law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves. Law enforcement is great, they do a tremendous job, but they can’t be everywhere all of the time. Our personal protection is ultimately up to us. That’s why I’m a gun owner, that’s why I have a concealed carry permit, and that’s why tens of millions of Americans have concealed carry permits as well. It’s just common sense. To make America great again, we’re going to go after criminals and put the law back on the side of the law-abiding.

Fix Our Broken Mental Health System

Let’s be clear about this. Our mental health system is broken. It needs to be fixed. Too many politicians have ignored this problem for too long.

All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue. We need to expand treatment programs, because most people with mental health problems aren’t violent, they just need help. But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities. This is just common sense.

And why does this matter to law-abiding gun owners? Once again, because they get blamed by anti- gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen. When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.

We need real solutions to address real problems. Not grandstanding or political agendas.

Defend The Rights of Law-Abiding Gun Owners

GUN AND MAGAZINE BANS. Gun and magazine bans are a total failure. That’s been proven every time it’s been tried. Opponents of gun rights try to come up with scary sounding phrases like “assault weapons”, “military-style weapons” and “high capacity magazines” to confuse people. What they’re really talking about are popular semi-automatic rifles and standard magazines that are owned by tens of millions of Americans. Law-abiding people should be allowed to own the firearm of their choice. The government has no business dictating what types of firearms good, honest people are allowed to own.

BACKGROUND CHECKS. There has been a national background check system in place since 1998. Every time a person buys a gun from a federally licensed gun dealer – which is the overwhelming majority of all gun purchases – they go through a federal background check. Study after study has shown that very few criminals are stupid enough to try and pass a background check – they get their guns from friends/family members or by stealing them. So the overwhelming majority of people who go through background checks are law-abiding gun owners. When the system was created, gun owners were promised that it would be instant, accurate and fair. Unfortunately, that isn’t the case today. Too many states are failing to put criminal and mental health records into the system – and it should go without saying that a system’s only going to be as effective as the records that are put into it. What we need to do is fix the system we have and make it work as intended. What we don’t need to do is expand a broken system. 231 |

NATIONAL RIGHT TO CARRY. The right of self-defense doesn’t stop at the end of your driveway. That’s why I have a concealed carry permit and why tens of millions of Americans do too. That permit should be valid in all 50 states. A driver’s license works in every state, so it’s common sense that a concealed carry permit should work in every state. If we can do that for driving – which is a privilege, not a right – then surely we can do that for concealed carry, which is a right, not a privilege.

MILITARY BASES AND RECRUITING CENTERS. Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.

ANALYSIS Trauma(s) used: Mass shootings (in general and in specific: Washington Navy Yard shooting, Chattanooga shooting)

Kind of act, i.e. action(s) the text tries to achieve: Assertive/representative: Yes, e.g. belief that upholding the right to keep and bear arms and extending the right to carry will make America great again. Commissive: Yes, discusses a number of measures that he will pursue when elected. Expressive: Yes, expressing state of mind on various occasions. Directive: No. Declarative: No.

Use of trauma(s): Direct mentioning/wordings none Metaphors “Because they’re the ones who anti-gun politicians and the media blame when criminals misuse guns.” – emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; emphasizing frustration “All of the tragic mass murders that occurred in the past several years have something in common – there were red flags that were ignored. We can’t allow that to continue.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation “But for those who are violent, a danger to themselves or others, we need to get them off the street before they can terrorize our communities.” – creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; scare the audience; creating an outgroup (of mentally ill people who are violent and dangerous) “Once again, because they get blamed by anti-gun politicians, gun control groups and the media for the acts of deranged madmen.” – emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians; creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties; emphasizing frustration; demonising offender(s) 232 |

“When one of these tragedies occurs, we can count on two things: one, that opponents of gun rights will immediately exploit it to push their political agenda; and two, that none of their so-called “solutions” would have prevented the tragedy in the first place. They’ve even admitted it.” – emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians; showing that proposed legislation or regulation is not effective; creating an outgroup (of opponents of gun rights who exploit mass shootings and have no real solutions) “Banning our military from carrying firearms on bases and at recruiting centers is ridiculous. We train our military how to safely and responsibly use firearms, but our current policies leave them defenseless. To make America great again, we need a strong military. To have a strong military, we need to allow them to defend themselves.” - creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation; showing vulnerability; showing that previous legislation or regulation is not effective Analogies none Emotions none Stereotypes none Identifying w/ audience’s feelings, needs and/or interests none Interactions none

Function of the use of trauma(s) (green means present): appealing to existent community uniting/creating a community demonising offender(s)/creating an outgroup remembrance and sympathizing with victims evoke emotional reaction scare the audience evoke anger/revenge feelings emphasizing frustration creating sense of urgency/the need to act now/need for new gun legislation or regulation showing vulnerability showing that proposed/previous legislation or regulation is not effective showing an infringement upon second amendment rights, freedom and liberties emphasizing overreaction by policymakers and politicians/public emphasizing abnormality of event emphasizing widespread and frequent occurrence of these events reassuring the audience of security downplaying the event

Intertextual meaning: Chronological order of texts: The publication date of this text is unknown. Reactions or references to texts of other actors:

233 |

Refers indirectly to many statements and arguments of both gun control and gun rights advocates in earlier texts. Also referring to legislation: AWB, Manchin-Toomey Amendment. References to own texts: Refers to his earlier statements about allowing military men and women to carry firearms at military bases and recruiting centers. Refers to many other arguments he has made in earlier texts.

234 |