Lott (who was talking about the obvious futility of background checks) might not have meant to zero in on the framing issue, but I have read the transcript of the president’s address, and I see not a single mention of “gun crime.” Instead of talking about crime (or even illegal guns, such as the gun that likely killed Hadiya Pendleton), the president talks only about “gun violence.”
What is “gun violence”? It seems to me that the term is intended to include more than gun crime. Otherwise, why not just say “gun crime”? And if “gun violence” includes more than crime, then what else?
Does “gun violence” include armed self defense?
Look, no need to overthink this one. The statist gun grabbers focus-grouped various terms, and discovered that “gun control” fared very badly, but the vaguer, fuzzier “gun violence” was more acceptable, so they substituted the second for the first.
But that doesn’t make “gun violence” any less a code phrase. Being against “gun violence,” (and who isn’t against “violence?”) may be more acceptable to some people (who don’t think very deeply or critically), but it means precisely the same thing to its proponents as gun control does.
As for the question of whether Obama opposes self defense, of course he does, if the self defense is carried out by private citizens keeping and bearing arms. Obama wants America to become England, where all forms of armed self defense have become more heinous, legally, that the acts of the predators themselves.
In other words, from Barack Obama’s point of view, you’re better off dead than defending youself with a gun.