Social media has become a vital tool for policymakers to engage with constituents and stakeholders on pertinent issues.

A key public health issue is firearm violence, a leading cause of death and injury among the general population and the leading cause of death for children and adolescents. Political discourse on firearm violence is highly polarized and partisan, resulting in divergent views on how to address the problem.

In a recent JMIR Formative Research article, former LDI Associate Fellow Vivek Ashok, now an Assistant Professor of Pediatrics at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, and LDI Senior Fellows Therese Richmond, Matthew Kearney, and Zachary Meisel sought to characterize policymakers’ posts on firearm violence to better understand how they might inform agenda-setting and public perception.

They found that a majority of the 1,491 posts analyzed were in response to mass shootings, and half assigned causal blame, including specific causes and nonspecific blame. 

Notably, fewer than one in 10 posts framed firearm violence as a public health issue. These posts were more likely to discuss the mental and physical consequences of firearm violence. 

Below, Ashok and Meisel discuss their study and its implications.

What led you to study Pennsylvania state policymakers’ X (formerly Twitter) posts about firearm violence?

Ashok: [The epidemic of firearm violence] has spurred action from policymakers, health professionals, and advocates. However, political polarization has contributed to divergent views on the causes and appropriate responses to firearm violence. Communication by elected officials, especially on social media, plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and policy agendas. So, understanding how state policymakers discuss firearm violence, including the use of causal blame, calls to action, and health-related narratives, can inform more effective public health strategies.

Meisel: We were hearing and seeing posts from public officials on this topic that seemed to illuminate more than what you might get if you just looked at their webpages, or looked at their media statements. We wondered if social media provided more nuance to the worldview, perspectives and policy positions of these officials.

What role do social media posts from elected officials have in shaping policy solutions for firearm violence?

Ashok: We wanted to see how the language that policymakers use on social media specifically defines how we look at the problem of firearm injury and firearm violence and the policies that are put forth. Legislators are key players in policies, and often their rhetoric will determine a policy agenda. 

Meisel: We know that social media is a common — and increasing – way that public officials communicate with constituents, colleagues and the general public. Even if they don’t always control their own accounts, what they message reflects much about their perspectives and their frames of reference.

What are some of the key findings from your study of firearm violence posts?

Ashok: The first was, out of all the forms of firearm injury and firearm violence, legislators talked about mass shootings the most. While absolutely devastating and deserved of national rhetoric, they do comprise only about one to two percent of firearm injury episodes, whereas the vast majority of firearm injury in the U.S. is firearm suicide followed by interpersonal or community violence. 

Additionally, policymakers are human, and often process these mass tragedy events through very emotional language and a general call to action/advocacy to end firearm injury or gun violence. But often, language that is general and nonspecific – examples being references to “gun reform,” “initiatives,” or “common-sense laws,” can lead to general and nonspecific blame towards things that may not be evidence-based and general policy solutions that may not be grounded in evidence. This doesn’t push the discourse further to talking about evidence-based policies that can reduce violence. 

The last key finding was that health was rarely mentioned. The picture of firearm injury and gun violence was through the lens of criminology, policing and advocacy.  They rarely described the health impacts or health prevention—suicide prevention, for example—that is so necessary to curbing this epidemic.

Meisel: I am really struck by the absence of health frames. And this was true from both sides of the aisle. We know that there was a robust discussion a few years ago when some lobbyists told medical and public health to “stay in their lane.” The reaction was swift:  this is a health topic, most agreed. Why aren’t more public officials speaking about this public health crisis in public health terms?

Were there any findings that surprised you about gun violence posts?

Ashok: When I’ve talked to policymakers, they have acknowledged that there is a public health crisis, yet when looking at the data, at least in social media, the translation from one-on-one conversations into the social media sphere doesn’t seem to have happened, at least from 2017 to 2022.

The second surprising thing is the discrepancy between the types of violence that are mentioned on social media and what’s actually happening—what we see in clinics, in emergency rooms, in intensive care units—and what policymakers talk about. 

Social media posts were often just general rhetoric about how gun violence is a problem, how we need to call for gun reform, and most of the rhetoric was actually partisan in nature. There’s a lot of partisan rhetoric for something that really should be a nonpartisan and nonpoliticized public health and health imperative.

What limitations should readers be aware of? 

Ashok: We analyzed posts from a single social media platform and didn’t look at engagement metrics like likes or reposts, so we can’t speak to how widely messages spread. Our focus was on how policymakers framed firearm injury and what solutions they discussed. We also didn’t account for individual policymaker characteristics, district context, or major news events that may have influenced posting. Finally, because this was a relatively small, cross-sectional study, our findings should be interpreted as descriptive and correlational rather than causal.

What recommendations do you have for policymakers?

Ashok: Policymakers, like the public they serve, often process tragedy through an emotional lens. Firearm injury and violence affect all of us, and emotional rhetoric that conveys moral outrage can play an important role by fostering human connection and resisting the normalization of firearm injury.

At the same time, there is an opportunity to pair policymakers’ strength in engaging broad audiences with language and messages that are evidence-based and reflective of epidemiologic realities. Collaborations with public health researchers and communication specialists could help frame firearm injury through a health and public health lens—one that emphasizes prevention and advances specific, effective, and evidence-informed policy solutions.

Meisel: They don’t have to call it a public health lens. It could be a scientific lens, or an evidence based lens or a keeping-communities-safe lens.

Where are you going next with the research? 

Ashok: We’re looking to connect what policymakers say online with what’s happening on the ground – specifically district-level firearm injury and death, policy activity, and funding for community violence intervention. We also plan to study engagement (likes, shares, comments) to better understand which messages and frames resonate most with the public. Finally, we hope to expand beyond this platform to newer spaces like TikTok and Instagram to see how firearm injury and violence are being discussed across different social media environments.

Meisel: There is a lot more here to probe. We are grateful to have had the opportunity to get access to these data and conduct the study.

---

The study, “Firearm Violence and Health in Policymaker Discourse: Mixed Methods Social Media Analysis,” was published in JMIR Formative Research on December 16, 2025. Authors include Vivek A. Ashok, William J.K. Vervilles, Katherine S. Kellom, Anyun Chatterjee, Isabella Ntigbu, Okechi Boms, Andrea Szabo, Joel A. Fein, Therese S. Richmond, Jonathan Purtle, Matthew D. Kearney, and Zachary F. Meisel.

---

Author

---