There is no shortage of words and rhetoric being offered up in relation to the topic of guns, much of it directed to the political standoff regarding how to respond to gun violence. Yet the debate over guns in America, especially as it concerns putting in conversation the positions of “gun people” and “non-gun people,” barely scratches the surface of substantive convictions held on both sides about the place of guns in our lives. A critical reason for this is that the language and rhetoric of the debate suppresses such convictions, keeping the discussion shallow and antagonistic. This, I argue, is in part due to the inadequate ethical conceptions—conceptions of practical reason—that frame the debate.