Introduction
Gun violence remains one of the most pressing issues globally, affecting public health, politics, and criminal justice systems. This article serves as a summary of a deeper discourse analysis conducted by AOAV that reveals the contrasting ways gun violence is framed by media and politicians across the United Kingdom, the United States and Australia.
While left-leaning media often highlight public health consequences, right-leaning media and conservative politicians tend to frame gun violence as a criminal justice issue, focusing on mental illness, law enforcement, and individual responsibility. In our research, AOAV has found that the narratives surrounding the Dunblane, Las Vegas and Port Arthur mass shootings form a compelling case study that exemplifies how cultural, political, and media framings influence public opinion and shape policy. This article summarises the key findings.
The analysis incorporates a cross-cultural comparison of the framing of gun violence, with a focus on key actors, media narratives and government responses. The findings highlight how public health framing can lead to comprehensive legislative reform, as seen in Australia, and how criminal justice framing can hinder policy change, as witnessed in the United States.
United Kingdom: Dunblane
The 1996 Dunblane massacre, in which 16 children and their teacher were killed by Thomas Hamilton, catalysed one of the most significant changes to UK gun laws. The framing of this event by UK media and politicians reflected distinct ideological divides, with The Guardian emphasising public health, while The Telegraph leaned towards a criminal justice narrative.
Media Framing
The Guardian framed gun violence as a public health issue, focusing on the psychological trauma experienced by the victims, emergency responders and the community. Reports quoted health professionals and highlighted the long-term psychological effects, reinforcing the argument for tighter gun control. This narrative challenged the notion that mental illness was the root cause of mass shootings, pre-empting arguments used by pro-gun advocates to shift blame away from firearms.
The Guardian’s emphasis on public health was complemented by calls for stricter gun regulation, as seen in references to the 3 million unregistered firearms in circulation and international comparisons with the United States. The newspaper made the case that tighter gun laws reduce the risk of mass shootings.
By contrast, The Telegraph framed gun violence through a criminal justice lens, focusing on the attacker’s mental state, policing failures and the inadequacy of school security. The portrayal of Hamilton as “probably homosexual” revealed a prejudicial framing of mental instability, often linked to moral deficiency. Gun regulation was discussed only briefly, with the focus shifting to societal decay, cultural violence and moral decline. Pro-gun rights groups, such as the National Pistol Association, were also quoted, providing an alternative view to The Guardian’s pro-regulation stance.
Political Framing
In Parliament, Labour politicians framed the Dunblane massacre as a public health crisis, arguing for a shift in regulatory approaches. The Home Secretary Jack Straw stated that public safety was paramount, calling for a comprehensive ban on handguns. Labour’s framing of the event as a public health emergency enabled them to garner broad public support for legislative reform.
By contrast, Conservative politicians like Michael Howard framed the issue as a matter of law and order. They argued that measures should target illegal firearms rather than penalise “law-abiding citizens” who owned firearms legally. This focus on the individual rights of gun owners and the role of policing positioned gun violence as a criminal justice issue. However, the power of public health framing, supported by the Snowdrop campaign, ultimately led to the passage of the 1997 Firearms Amendment Act.
United States: Las Vegas
On October 1, 2017, Stephen Paddock killed 60 people and injured over 400 more when he fired on the Route 91 Harvest music festival from a hotel window in Las Vegas. Despite the devastating loss of life, the US government’s response was limited to a ban on bump stocks, devices that enable semi-automatic weapons to mimic automatic fire, with no broader changes to gun control laws.
Media Framing
The New York Times framed the Las Vegas shooting as a public health crisis, focusing on the healthcare response and the logistical demands placed on hospitals. Reports detailed the volume of trauma cases and the overburdening of emergency services, highlighting the healthcare strain caused by mass shootings. Calls for gun reform were frequent, with experts from the American Medical Association (AMA) cited as supporting tighter gun laws.
The New York Times also stressed the broader impact of gun violence on public health, linking it to emergency room costs, mental health consequences and community trauma. By calling for “well-crafted safety measures,” the newspaper framed firearms control as a public health issue with quantifiable, preventable harms.
Fox News framed the shooting as a criminal justice issue, with a heavy focus on Paddock’s mental instability and possible “mental defects.” Gun regulation was downplayed, with Fox commentators deriding Democrats for politicising the tragedy. The network advanced the pro-gun argument that “evil people will always find a way to kill,” reinforcing the idea that gun laws cannot prevent violence. Instead, Fox promoted the notion of “good guys with guns” as a counter-solution to mass shootings.
Political Framing
Democratic politicians, including Senator Chris Murphy and Representative Pramila Jayapal, framed gun violence as a public health crisis. They called for gun control measures like universal background checks, citing the AMA’s declaration that gun violence is a public health emergency. Democratic lawmakers argued for a comprehensive approach, linking gun violence to health system costs, mental health services, and community trauma.
Republican lawmakers framed the Las Vegas shooting as a matter of criminal justice, focusing on law enforcement failures and “evil individuals” like Paddock. No mention was made of the health impacts of gun violence, and public health officials were excluded from the discourse. President Trump offered thoughts and prayers but made no mention of public safety or community well-being. The Trump administration’s decision to regulate bump stocks via executive action, rather than a legislative route, allowed Republicans to circumvent public and congressional debates on gun control. Supported by the NRA, this decision highlights the gun lobby’s power in suppressing policy discourse.
Australia: Port Arthur
On April 28, 1996, Martin Bryant killed 35 people at Port Arthur, Tasmania. This massacre prompted swift action by Prime Minister John Howard, resulting in the National Firearms Agreement (NFA), which banned semi-automatic and pump-action firearms and launched a gun buyback program. The Australian media and political response offers a striking contrast to those of the UK and US.
Media Framing
The Sydney Morning Herald framed the Port Arthur massacre as a public health crisis, focusing on the mental trauma experienced by victims, emergency responders, and the wider community. Public health officials, such as psychiatrists and health experts, were cited in the reporting. The newspaper challenged arguments that mass shootings were a result of mental illness, emphasising the role of legally owned firearms in mass shootings.
The Australian Financial Review, while more subtle in its public health framing, linked gun violence to community well-being. Discussions around domestic violence, mental health, and suicide were highlighted as factors requiring attention in the broader context of gun violence. This contrasted with the criminal justice narratives seen in US and UK right-wing media, which rarely discussed suicide or domestic abuse.
Political Framing
Both conservative and progressive politicians framed the Port Arthur massacre as a public health issue. Prime Minister John Howard prioritised community safety and stated that his decisions were intended to “protect public safety.” His framing of the NFA as a measure to ensure community well-being marked a clear departure from criminal justice narratives.
Unlike in the US and UK, politicians on both sides of the political spectrum supported the NFA. John Howard’s emphasis on protecting the Australian community shifted the gun control debate away from criminal justice and into the realm of public health. This strategy, coupled with support from public health academics and grassroots activism from the National Coalition for Gun Control, led to one of the most successful and swift gun reforms in modern history.
Cultural Differences in Framing Gun Violence
AOAV’s analysis of the Dunblane, Las Vegas, and Port Arthur massacres illustrates how cultural and political differences influence media and government responses to gun violence. In Australia, both left- and right-wing newspapers framed the Port Arthur massacre as a public health crisis, while UK and US right-leaning media leaned on criminal justice narratives.
The shared public health framing by Australian politicians and media enabled bipartisan support for the NFA. By contrast, the ideological divide in the UK, with Labour emphasising public health and Conservatives highlighting law and order, resulted in slower policy change. In the US, Democrats adopted a public health framing, while Republicans advanced criminal justice arguments, which, combined with the NRA’s influence, limited legislative action.
Conclusion
This summary highlights how AOAV’s longer discourse analysis of media and political responses to mass shootings reveals significant differences in how gun violence is framed across the UK, US, and Australia.
While the public health narrative was influential in the UK and central to Australian reform, criminal justice narratives dominated US media and Republican rhetoric. The Australian case shows that framing gun violence as a public health issue can lead to substantive reform, while framing it as a criminal justice issue reinforces the status quo.
This comparative analysis, we hope, demonstrates how media and political narratives can shape public opinion, influence legislation, and determine the policy trajectory of gun control. In an era of fake news, more and more hardline political positions taken by news-outlets and the dominance of billionaire-funded news organisations, this should be a cause for concern.
Did you find this story interesting? Please support AOAV's work and donate.
Donate