How Gun Control Illustrates a Clash of Paradigms

Differing paradigms (or presuppositional frameworks) cause people on different sides of an issue to not only disagree, but to think in such terms that they cannot understand how the other side thinks, which tends to make debate futile and unending. This is true in political matters as much as in theological matters. The current debate on gun control illustrates this very well. While I am not interested in debating gun control here, I think it can be helpful to analyze the differences in the way both sides of that issue think, and the communication problems that result.

Gun rights advocates and gun control advocates have very different views of the public and of morality. The former are more foundational and absolutist in their thinking, while the latter are more relativistic. This results in gun rights advocates viewing the public as a polarized body consisting of a stable subset of responsible, law-abiding citizens as well as a subset of irresponsible, scoff-laws and would-be criminals. The more relativistic view of the gun control advocates results in their view of the public as a morally homogeneous group of which every individual is a potential criminal and violent perpetrator. Therefore, while the gun rights advocate sees the need for protection from the criminal element, the gun control advocate sees the need for protection from every member of the public. The former objects that if guns are made illegal, then only law-abiding citizens will be denied access to them, leaving everyone unprotected from those who are the real threat; while the latter sees the main threat coming not from some criminal element but from those very citizens who are ordinarily law-abiding.

Such a vast philosophical difference in how the two sides think and view the world precludes any real progress on the issue. This is the same kind of difference in thinking that frustrates such theological debates as that between Arminians and Calvinists.

Ken Hamrick, 2013

Advertisements

2 comments

  1. Jason Mahill

    I would add that it is possible that environment and background impact which side a person falls in this debate as well. Many of my friends in Law Enforcement support private gun ownership and have encouraged me to obtain a conceal and carry permit. This is due to their understanding that by the time they respond to gang violence or a home invasion in my area, someone has already been murdered.

    On the other hand, nearly all of my friends (and a couple of family members) who oppose private gun ownership altogether think that law enforcement is sufficient in protecting the lives of citizens in our communties. They are also under the impression that criminals obtain weapons through legal purchase in gun stores.

    In this, the debate is made even worse when one or both sides skew the facts or outright fabricate things to bolster their own arguement.

    On another note, as a gun owner, I am more troubled that the loudest spokespeople supporting my views seem to be a few brain cells shy of sanity. I just wish that the many lawyers and ivy league historians who support my views would be brought out on CNN and Fox. But then again, sometimes this happens in theological debates as well…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s