Sitting here watching the news, I just saw a clip of Senator Lindsey Graham lashing out at “gun control,” stating that his right to enjoy the 8 guns he owns or his right to hunt should not be infringed by the actions of fringe members of society.
What consistently bugs me about the gun control debate is the lack of follow up challenging this framing of the issue. Graham’s statement implies that “gun control” provisions would limit his ability to own guns or hunt. When framed this way, Republicans can shut down any effort to reform gun regulations with a hypothetical “worst case scenario.”
Why is there never a pointed follow-up asking, “is there any regulation that you can think of that could allow law-abiding citizens to keep their guns while reducing the risk that crazies will get guns?” or “do you own an assault rifle, and if not why not restrict access to assault rifles?” or “as a trained hunter, you are obviously proficient at handling guns safely — could you support laws that make gun licenses contingent on passing a safety test?”
Once the framing of the issue as though “gun control” seeks an outright gun ban rather than thoughtful licensing and regulation, the Republicans have already won. And the media almost never challenges these claims.