Introduction
Mass shootings represent a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, drawing from individual, social, and environmental origins. Current legislative and media initiatives predominantly concentrate on firearm ownership as the sole focal point for investigation and intervention, and mainstream media (MSM) communicates this singular narrative without challenge.
In today’s complex and profoundly polarized political landscape, mass shootings represent a tragic and pressing issue. However, how we understand and talk about them is often shaped by forces beyond the events themselves. If you follow the daily coverage from MSM, you might get the impression that mass shootings are simply the inevitable result of easy access to firearms. This singular focus on gun ownership, especially within corporate media circles, tends to drown out more nuanced conversations about the root causes of violence.
But here’s the problem: this oversimplified narrative is not merely a reaction to violence but part of a broader political agenda aimed at undermining the Second Amendment. The gun control debate in the U.S. has become heavily politicized, intending to erode citizens’ constitutional rights to keep and bear arms. MSM, largely liberal-leaning, has played a vital role in shaping public opinion to see firearms as the core problem behind mass shootings while downplaying the complex socioeconomic and mental health factors that contribute to these events. This media framing ignores the historical context and the original intent of the Second Amendment, which was designed to protect individuals’ ability to defend themselves, not only from interpersonal violence but from any threat to personal liberty. What we see is not just the reporting of tragedies but a coordinated effort to frame gun ownership as the sole problem, positioning firearms as a public enemy while downplaying other critical factors like mental health, workplace grievances, or socioeconomic issues.
The effect of this is insidious. By focusing exclusively on guns as the cause of violence, MSM pushes the conversation toward stricter gun control and away from a broader, more comprehensive understanding of why these shootings occur in the first place. Ultimately, the goal of this narrative seems clear: to dilute the need for an armed citizenry, to make it appear outdated or even dangerous in today’s world. This approach shifts the public toward viewing personal firearms as unnecessary. It encourages a sense of dependence — on the government, law enforcement, and institutions — rather than empowering citizens to protect themselves against foreign or domestic threats. Some researchers seeking objective inclusivity admit, “Coverage can focus on alternative issues such as mental illness or weapon type, which may have different drivers” (Pelled et al., 2021, p. 2129). Additionally, there appears to be unexamined opportunism within media and politics, revealing a sometimes disingenuous sensationalism over these tragedies (Rohlinger et al., 2022, p. 703), leading to further divergence from understanding.
The Media and Academia’s Role in Shaping Public Perception
The way MSM covers mass shootings is not a neutral act of reporting but a deliberate form of agenda-setting. Media outlets shape how the public perceives the issue by sensationalizing certain aspects — such as weapon types and legislative responses — while downplaying or ignoring others. This distortion is evident in the disproportionate coverage of high-profile shootings that support the gun control narrative while ignoring instances where armed civilians prevent or mitigate violence.
This selective framing reinforces a narrative that firearm ownership is inherently dangerous, creating fear and opposition to gun rights. MSM largely omits cases where legally armed citizens intervene to stop mass shootings, as such stories contradict the preferred narrative. Instead, coverage overwhelmingly emphasizes instances where firearms are used criminally, fostering a misleading perception that gun ownership equates to increased violence.
Additionally, the politicization of the gun debate has permeated academic discourse. This framing is echoed in much of the scholarly literature, which tends to support gun control without critically examining alternative hypotheses. Studies often cite gun availability as the primary driver of mass shootings while downplaying the complex social, psychological, and institutional failures that may also contribute (Kellermann & Rivara, 2013). In doing so, the media and academic discourse reinforce each other, creating an echo chamber that marginalizes voices defending the constitutional right to bear arms. The academic literature surrounding gun violence and mass shootings is overwhelmingly shaped by a liberal narrative, which frames firearms as the primary culprit. Much of this work aligns with media portrayals that advocate for stricter gun control, often citing data that correlates gun availability with violence but fails to engage with the broader constitutional debate regarding the Second Amendment.
Additionally, conservative scholars have pointed out the flaws in studies that attempt to link gun ownership directly with increased violence. Kleck (2021) argued that defensive gun use is underreported and that the presence of firearms in many cases has prevented crimes from escalating to lethal outcomes. Similarly, Lott (2010) contends that gun-free zones have inadvertently made specific public spaces more vulnerable to mass shootings by disarming law-abiding citizens who might otherwise intervene.
Rather than addressing the socioeconomic, cultural, and mental health factors, the dominant narrative continues to emphasize gun control as a one-size-fits-all solution. By doing so, it not only erodes the rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment but also distracts from more holistic solutions to violence.
Politicalization of Mass Shootings
MSM’s framing of mass shootings aligns closely with political agendas seeking stricter gun control. Journalistic neutrality is compromised when coverage includes immediate calls for legislative action before investigations have even concluded. Politicians and activists exploit these tragedies to push for policies that may have little to no bearing on preventing future incidents, while MSM provides an uncritical platform for such rhetoric. Often, politicians appear immediately following a tragedy and grandstand solely against firearm ownership (Rohlinger et al., 2022). This incomplete narrative reinforces an oversimplification and ignores all other potential factors, creating a dangerous singular assumption that influences public opinion and legislative politics. A worldview of inclusive truths is called upon to uncover actual causality.
Irresponsible Reporting and its Consequences
MSM’s approach to mass shooting coverage exacerbates social division and panic. Sensationalist headlines, emotionally charged reporting, and the repeated broadcasting of gruesome details instill fear in the public, reinforcing the idea that mass shootings are an omnipresent threat. This misrepresentation ignores statistical realities, as mass shootings — while tragic — are a small fraction of overall gun violence in the U.S. Furthermore, the media’s focus on gun control overshadows discussions about mental health reform, early intervention strategies, and other meaningful solutions. A balanced conversation about mass shootings would include an examination of law enforcement failures, breakdowns in mental health support, and the societal conditions that contribute to violent behavior. Yet, MSM consistently avoids these discussions, as they do not serve the prevailing political narrative.
Firearms Thwarting Mass Shootings, Suppressed in MSM
Perception of firearms, framed by MSM as nearly always unfavorable, warrants closer examination. One such piece of evidence of this is the incidents where a firearm thwarted a mass shooting. There have been many cases where individuals with firearms intervened to stop or mitigate a potential mass shooting; stories rarely disseminated in MSM broadcasts, missing or marginalized.
The following information, collected by Zeeshan Usmani, was drawn from 128 mass shootings throughout the United States of America from 1982 to 2022 (Usmani, 2022). The data is valid in that all 128 incidents are well documented. However, reliability was based on and compiled from media sources, not official standardized crime demographics such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program.
Here are a few examples:
Sutherland Springs, Texas (2017): An armed citizen, Stephen Willeford, confronted and exchanged gunfire with the perpetrator who had just committed a mass shooting at the First Baptist Church. Willeford’s actions contributed to the perpetrator fleeing the scene, and he later died from a self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Plymouth, Pennsylvania (2018): A man opened fire at a nightclub, injuring several people. An armed bystander shot and killed the perpetrator, preventing further casualties.
Conyers, Georgia (2019): A man entered a crowded church with the intent to carry out a mass shooting. However, an armed church member shot the attacker, preventing further harm.
Pearl, Mississippi (1997): Luke Woodham killed his mother at home before going to Pearl High School where he opened fire, killing two students and injuring seven others. The assistant principal, Joel Myrick, retrieved a .45 caliber handgun from his car and detained Woodham until police arrived.
Appalachian School of Law, Virginia (2002): A former student, Peter Odighizuwa, opened fire on the campus, killing three people. Two students, Tracy Bridges and Mikael Gross, ran to their cars to retrieve firearms and confronted the shooter, holding him until police arrived.
Trolley Square, Utah (2007): A gunman entered the Trolley Square mall and began shooting, killing five people. An off-duty police officer, Kenneth Hammond, confronted and wounded the shooter until additional police arrived and neutralized the threat.
Clackamas Town Center, Oregon (2012): A gunman opened fire in a shopping mall, killing two people. Nick Meli, a concealed carry permit holder, drew his firearm but did not fire, as he did not have a clear shot. The presence of an armed citizen may have influenced the shooter’s decision to retreat and subsequently commit suicide.
Logan Square, Chicago (2015): A concealed carry permit holder, who was an Uber driver, shot and wounded a gunman who had opened fire on a crowd of people in Logan Square. The armed Uber driver acted in self-defense and the defense of others.
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma (2017): A man walked into a restaurant and opened fire, injuring several people. Two armed citizens, Juan Carlos Nazario and Bryan Wittle, confronted and shot the gunman, stopping the attack.
It is challenging to provide an exhaustive list of incidents where a firearm thwarted a mass shooting, as such events are not always widely reported or documented. If not for the source of the following information, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the information would strain credulity.
CDC surveys revealed “huge estimates of defensive gun uses – over a million per year, far more than the number of violent crimes in which offenders used guns” (Kleck, 2021, p. 417). Despite this, MSM minimizes these stories far under the coverage of traumatic but sensationalized mass shootings. Framing and agenda-setting need ethical oversight under public scrutiny in the light of such weighty information.
Conclusion
Psychological studies highlight correlations between owning firearms for defense and low trust in law enforcement’s ability to protect people, as well as the impact of MSM coverage focusing on gun violence stories (Kreienkamp et al., 2021, p. 425), though notably absent from these analyses are crucial variables such as law enforcement response time and instances where firearms were used for defense, potentially saving lives.
Moreover, examining MSM’s communication of high-profile events like the Columbine and Parkland shootings reveals a disconcerting trend, emphasizing that the narratives often concentrate more on the shooters than the victims, and this phenomenon has intensified over time (Durosky et al., 2023). Further research could delve into the psychological evaluation of living assailants concerning MSM exposure, offering valuable insights into the potential impact of media representation on individuals contemplating similar acts.
MSM has grown increasingly partisan over the last two decades, and public perception of credibility is a consequence of this evolving dynamic. One study revealed that a viewer’s assessment of credibility for a mock headline related to mental health and gun violence was associated with the MSM source, which is “unfortunate in the sense that it speaks to substantial vulnerability to misinformation” (Bandel et al., 2023, p. 1859). However, another study, digging into the same partisan MSM influence on gun violence reveals a public disassociation from the topic altogether due to the echo chamber effect and repetition of the same belief-reenforcing information (Guo et al., 2021, p. 760).
Finally, MSM’s coverage of mass shooting events in the USA has often been criticized for its irresponsibility, contributing to a sensationalized and distorted public perception of these tragic incidents. One major issue is the excessive focus on the perpetrators rather than the victims or the broader societal issues. By sensationalizing the shooters and giving them extensive coverage, the media inadvertently provides a platform for individuals seeking notoriety, potentially inspiring copycat crimes. Moreover, the rush to be the first to report breaking news can lead to misinformation and inaccuracies. In the chaotic aftermath of a mass shooting, media outlets may rely on unverified sources, contributing to the spread of false information, not only harming the credibility of the news but shaping public opinion and policy decisions based on inaccurate details.
The relentless 24/7 news cycle also perpetuates a cycle of fear and trauma. Continuous, graphic coverage can desensitize the audience and contribute to a culture of fear, further dividing communities. This sensationalism can also overshadow the underlying issues that contribute to mass shootings, such as mental health or societal inequalities. By focusing on the immediate shock value, the media fails to provide nuanced analysis or foster meaningful conversations about prevention and intervention.
Additionally, media outlets often neglect the ethical considerations of broadcasting sensitive images and personal details of victims, intruding on their privacy and causing additional distress to grieving families. This lack of sensitivity raises questions about journalistic ethics and the media’s responsibility to balance the public’s right to know with the well-being of those directly affected.
In conclusion, MSM’s framing of mass shootings is not simply incomplete — it is deliberately misleading. By focusing narrowly on firearms, ignoring counterexamples, and promoting political agendas, MSM skews public perception and stifles productive debate. A responsible media approach would involve balanced reporting that acknowledges all contributing factors to mass violence rather than exploiting tragedies to drive a predetermined narrative. Until journalistic integrity takes precedence over political objectives, public discourse on mass shootings will remain shallow and misinformed.
References
Bandel, S. L., Bond, A. E., Bryan, C. J., & Anestis, M. D. (2023). Public perception of gun violence-related headline accuracy and the credibility of media sources. Health Communication, 38(9), 1856–1861. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1080/10410236.2022.2037199
Durosky, A., Newman, E., & Holton, A. E. (2023). Perpetuating perpetrators: News coverage of perpetrators and victims of the Columbine and Parkland shootings. Journalism Studies, 24(4), 515–531. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2023.2173952
Guo, L., Mays, K., Zhang, Y., Wijaya, D., & Betke, M. (2021). What makes gun violence a (less) prominent issue? A computational analysis of compelling arguments and selective agenda setting. Mass Communication & Society, 24(5), 651–675. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1080/15205436.2021.1898644
Kellermann, A. L., & Rivara, F. P. (2013). Silencing the Science on Gun Research. Journal of the American Medical Association, 309(6), 549-550. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2012.208207
Kleck, G. (2021). What do CDC’s surveys say about the prevalence of defensive gun use? American Journal of Criminal Justice, 46(3), 401–421. Retrieved December 1, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1007/s12103-020-09562-0
Kreienkamp, J., Agostini, M., Leander, N. P., & Stroebe, W. (2021). How news exposure and trust in law enforcement relate to defensive gun ownership. Psychology of Violence, 11(4), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1037/vio0000375.supp
Lott, J. R. (2010). More Guns, Less Crime : Understanding Crime and Gun Control Laws, Third Edition: Vol. 3rd ed. University of Chicago Press.
Pelled, A., Lukito, J., Foley, J., Yini Zhang, S. Z., Pevehouse, J. C., & Shah, D. V. (2021). Death across the news spectrum: A time series analysis of partisan coverage following mass shootings in the United States between 2012 and 2014. International Journal of Communication (19328036), 15, 2116–2135. https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ufh&AN=152906985&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Rohlinger, D. A., Allen, W., & DeLucchi, C. (2022). Framing dynamics and claimsmaking after the Parkland shooting. Information, Communication & Society, 25(5), 690–706. Retrieved November 21, 2023, from https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.2021271
Usmani, Z. (2022, May 24). U.S. mass shootings: Last 50 years (1966-2021). Kaggle. Retrieved November 17, 2023, from https://www.kaggle.com/datasets/zusmani/us-mass-shootings-last-50-years
(Featured Image: “RVA Pro Gun Rally 2020-9” by Mobilus In Mobili is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.)