Talking Past Each Other: The Diverging Moral Foundations of the Contemporary Gun Debate

The debate over gun control has become an increasingly divisive political issue among Americans—so much so that both liberals and conservatives appear to be talking past each other. But what is causing this ideological rift? According to Moral Foundations Theory, such political schisms arise because liberals and conservatives hold different moral intuitions and respond to different forms of moral rhetoric. In line with this theory, I coded political speeches and op-eds in the New York Times and found that liberals and conservatives do in fact draw on different moral foundations in their arguments over gun control. Advocates of gun control rely heavily on the "care” foundation in their rhetoric, while advocates of gun rights rely on the “care”, “liberty”, “loyalty”, and “authority” foundations. In this way, both sides of the gun control debate talk past each other by using rhetoric that fails to resonate with the opposition’s moral intuitions. Furthermore, the gun rights side of the debate benefits from using a wider array of moral dimensions in their arguments, which likely appeals to a greater number of moral intuitions. In light of the high number of gun-related injuries and fatalities in the U.S., it is important to understand the role that moral intuitions and rhetoric play in obstructing any meaningful political (or scientific) consensus on gun control