Competing Narrative Frames to Account for Random Public Shootings

Two incidents during one week of December 2012 reminded the American public of the potential for massive gun violence even in apparently safe situations. On December 11, a gunman entered an Oregon shopping center and shot three people before his assault rifle jammed. The social media comment posted by a local ABC affiliate ? ‘Oh dear. Again’ (‘On social media,’ 12/11/12) ? reflects the perception that the shooting was part of an ongoing pattern of public violence, a familiar story form. Early headlines label the incident a ‘Terror’ and ‘Shooting rampage’. Despite the low death count, it brought national media attention until three days later when a man, armed with three semi-automatic weapons, killed twenty-six at a Connecticut elementary school. The perception of innocence violated switched media attention to a new terror, but both incidents reveal the same narrative patterns. This essay examines the conventional frames ? the narrative strategies ? that the media, employ in reporting this form of violence: the first memorializes the victims and reassures the public that violence is an aberration; the second links violence with gun control laws, thus prompting a deliberative impulse to debate gun control. Drawing on media framing and classical rhetorical theory this essay explores the conventional form for addressing random public shootings. The competing narratives create a tension that limits the ability of either to be seen as an appropriate or fitting response to the exigence created by this kind of violence.