Bump Stocks: A Threat to Gun Control or a Misunderstood Accessory?

November 15, 2023

Bump Stocks: A Threat to Gun Control or a Misunderstood Accessory?

- Yug Shah

Pre-Blog

The public's comprehension of politics is greatly influenced by the media since it has unlimited access to the opinions of those who can be influenced. Whether left- or right-leaning, a media outlet will publish certain stories to support their party's candidate or undermine the opposition's credibility. Many people find it challenging to distinguish between stories that are impartial and those that have ulterior intentions, even in the face of widespread public knowledge. I wanted to choose two well-known news sources that would be credible and easy for the reader to understand. So, I chose Fox News for my Conservatist source and The Guardian for my Liberal Source. 

Opening

“The recent Supreme Court decision to strike down the federal ban on bump stocks, examining differing perspectives on legal and social implications from both news sources.” This issue's main point of interest is bump stocks. Should they or should they not be allowed? According to the Supreme Court, they should be allowed, and this is for several reasons. The first reason is "statutory interpretation." Second, the overstep of the ATF, and finally, the inactivity of the Supreme Court. These are just a few reasons bump stocks are still legal in the United States. 

Fox News

The Fox News article talks about the Supreme Court's decision to overrule the ban on bump stocks, a device that enables semi-automatic weapons to go boom boom quicker. This decision has sparked controversies about the impact on U.S. citizens' Second Amendment rights as well as over the power of federal agencies to regulate subjects like these. The article includes reactions from conservatives, celebrating the ruling as a victory for Second Amendment protections. It emphasizes how the Supreme Court's decision on bump stocks affects gun rights. I find the article extremely convincing because it clearly explains the Court's reasoning, making the complex issue accessible to readers without over-complicating the details. By breaking down the controversy in simple terms, it actually communicates the stakes of the case. The article was written for readers who already lean conservative, as it uses agenda-setting techniques and party polarization to reinforce their views on gun rights. This approach may not only solidify current beliefs but could also sway a small group of individuals toward a more conservative stance on the issue.

The Guardian

As the Supreme Court overturns the federal ban on bump stocks, controversy over gun regulations rages on in the U.S. It explains the Court’s ruling, which held that only Congress, not the ATF, is empowered to ban such problems. The article also debates what the ruling may mean for public safety. The article looks at the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn the bump stock ban, and how it will impact gun regulation. I believe the article is convincing because the article discusses both the Court’s rationale and the gun control advocates’ legitimate concerns. The Guardian is well known for its liberal perspective, and it is important to realize that as with all sources The Guardian has inherent bias. Subtly, the article indicates that the ruling’s impact on agency powers is, ironically, out of tune with the right-leaning majority of the Court. It advocates agenda-setting and polarizing readers on the issue. More specifically, when the article informs readers of Joe Biden’s reaction to the ruling, calling for Congress to take further action on gun safety, people who admire public safety and regulation get conned into supporting it. However, the timing of the article, published before and after the ruling, highlights that this issue is urgent in American politics a wider trend in which the ruling could reflect. The article could convince readers they should see the ruling as a ‘troubling trend’ regarding the public’s safety and regulatory authority, by aligning it with them and their position on stronger public safety checks in firearms. It could actually support existing theories that Supreme Court cases are questionable, and help bolster the call to action for more legislative action on gun control.