Tragically our nation, once again, finds itself having to deal with a mass shooting. And, once again, the arguments in favor of doing something to limit access to high-powered weapons is butting heads with the NRA and second amendment purists.
We have heard the arguments before and we will, I fear, hear them again. So let’s change the terms of the conversation.
At the root of the gun debate is a basic assumption that technology is ethically neutral and that what matters most is how an instrument, like a gun, comes to be used. This is called “the instrumentalist theory of technology,” and both sides endorse it.
Advocates of gun control want to regulate users by restricting who can purchase and own firearms. The NRA, for its part, has formulated its instrumentalist position in a catchy slogan: “Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.” But what both sides neglect is the fact that technology is not and has never been neutral. A technology frames possibilities.
Although a hammer can be used for good or ill, the object already organizes a set of opportunities. When you have a hammer, for example, everything begins to look like a nail.
Instead of blindly adhering to the instrumentalist theory and making arguments one way or the other, we need to recognize how guns -- especially high-powered automatic weapons -- frame a set of possibilities and that limiting gun violence may mean targeting the instrument and its affordances.
I’m David Gunkel, and that’s my perspective.
