Since Sandy Hook: Strategic Maneuvering in the Gun Control Debate

Abstract

In the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre President Barack Obama and Wayne LaPierre, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle Association, engaged in a critical discussion on the future of gun reform. Obama started by assuming that guns are the cause of violence, thus advocating for more gun control. LaPierre argued for more guns to stop violence, assuming that guns are passive instruments without agency. Yet, despite the public outcry for action, the gun debate continues unabated. Using strategic maneuvering as an analytic framework, we assess both parties’ “reasonableness” in the public discussion and uncover the moves that preclude resolution. Neither Obama nor LaPierre was reasonable because they ignored the other’s starting point. We propose cross arguing, or arguing from an interlocutor’s starting point, as a method to move this and other intractable debates forward.

Keywords:

• Barack Obama
• Cross Arguing
• Gun Debate
• Reasonableness
• Sandy Hook
• Strategic Maneuvering
• Wayne LaPierre

Notes

^1. Although LaPierre spoke prior to Obama, we characterize LaPierre as “responding” because Obama’s standpoint alters the status quo while LaPierre wants to maintain status quo gun regulations. Since everyday argumentation rarely conforms to the analytic of the critical discussion (e.g., many arguments have unexpressed premises), strategic maneuvering supplies analyst norms of reconstruction to guide the process of clarifying the debate. Obama’s speech is considered first because it asks for a change from the status quo while LaPierre’s seeks stasis. For more on the norms of reconstruction, see van Eemeren and Grootendorst (2004, pp. 95–122).