Thoughts on American Gun Culture Shared with Journalist from Parisian Newspaper Le Monde

While I’m at it with the media, I thought I would post comments on American gun culture I shared recently with a journalist from at the French daily newspaper Le Monde. The comments offer a summarize of some of my overarching views of American gun culture, for what they are worth. They are what I would tell anyone wondering about the place of guns in American society.

The journalist wrote me by email to say she is “writing an article regarding gun control and its’ role in American culture. I am looking specifically at the news bills, including HR 38 [national concealed carry reciprocity], introduced in the Senate after the Scalise shooting.” She posed two different questions:

  1. As an expert in the field, I was looking to get your  perspective on why Americans, across party lines, hold onto the Second Amendment so adamantly despite ongoing shootings.
  2. From a sociological perspective, what fuels the American fascination with gun and how much of this culture is orchestrated by politicians and lobbyists?

My full email response is below. You will see I basically ignore the first question and focus on the second. To date, she has not published anything using my thoughts, and given that they are unlikely to fit her gun control after Scalise shooting storyline, I doubt she will.

“Paris – Le Monde” by Marcella Fava is licensed under CC BY-NC 2.0

Dear Beatrice,

Concealed carry reciprocity, the substance of HR 38, is not a new idea. Some pro-gun groups in the US have been advocating for it for several years now. So, rather than commenting on that issue specifically – though I could do that, also – I will focus on the bigger issues at stake raised by your questions.

You ask: From a sociological perspective, what fuels the American fascination with guns and how much of this culture is orchestrated by politicians and lobbyists?

Two part question, so two part answer.

First, it is important for anyone trying to understand the relationship of Americans to guns to recognize that for a large part of the population of the United States, guns are a perfectly normal part of life. A majority of the population currently lives with a gun in their house or has in the past. A sizeable minority have thought about or are actively considering acquiring a gun. 7 out of 10 American adults have actually fired a gun at some point in their lives. That is nearly 180 million people.

Looked at the other way around: A minority of American adults have never shot a gun.

For some Americans, there is a true fascination with guns – their history, their mechanical operation, what they can do, and what they stand for. These people are not unlike collectors or aficionados or obsessives in other areas of life like automobiles, trains, boats, or bicycles.

For some of these people, there is more of a practical or pragmatic approach to guns – their usefulness as tools to accomplish certain tasks like hunting, recreation, or self-defense.

For a sizeable minority of the US population, guns are a perfectly normal part of everyday life. Something kept around the house or in the car or on their person in the (more or less likely, depending on their circumstances) event that they need to defend themselves.

Although polls are imperfect, the nonpartisan Pew Research Center has recently reported that over 1 in 10 American adults claim to carry their handguns outside the home at least some of the time. If true, that is almost 30 million people. In the same survey, 7% of all adult respondents said they had used a gun to defend themselves or their possessions, whether they fired the gun or not. That is an estimated 17,461,810 adults in the US. That is alot of people. (See:

What I have argued about social scientists studying guns may apply to journalists as well. The strong, one might even say excessive, focus on the criminology and epidemiology of gun violence impedes the ability to understand the normality of legal use of guns by lawful gun owners in the United States. The vast majority of gun owners will never directly experience any major negative outcomes due to their ownership of guns. (See my recently published scholarly article:

Although the reasons for American’s attachment to guns are manifold, it is also true that the center of gravity of American gun culture is shifting away from the historic Gun Culture 1.0 emphasis on hunting, recreational shooting, and collecting to the contemporary Gun Culture 2.0 emphasis on armed self-defense. Which provides a point of transition to your second question.

Influential politicians and lobbyists are part of American gun culture and can influence gun culture by promoting or rejecting certain legislative initiatives. However, they do not determine (“orchestrate,” to use your term) American gun culture. As a part of American gun culture they exist in a symbiotic relationship with the broader culture, sometimes playing a more leading role and sometimes a more subordinate role.

Take the National Rifle Association, for example. It played an instrumental role in the “shall-issue” concealed carry revolution that swept the country in the 1980s and 1990s. However, the NRA was not always on the leading edge of promoting armed self-defense. In fact, it was only after an organizational coup – the “Revolt at Cincinnati” in 1977 – that the NRA took up a more aggressive legislative posture. Even after the concealed carry revolution, the NRA played a more supportive than leading role in developing the culture of concealed carry. There was much more dynamism and development at the grassroots level that the NRA took advantage of as opposed to orchestrating.

This last observation is a major focus of my work on Gun Culture 2.0.

I can say much more, and there is much more on my blog ( if you care to follow up.



  1. I have a strong dislike for the use of the term “fascination” when discussing firearms, whether in her question or in your response. To me, the term implies emotional wonderment and a lack of full understanding, an almost childlike and immature connection. In my opinion, pro-firearms discussions should swap the word “fascination” for “affinity” (or another less-emotionally-laden word).

    Liked by 1 person

    • Agreed, and for an additional reason. In literature and myth the word “fascinate” is often used to describe how a cobra or other snake will hypnotize and lull its victim to its own death. The trope is even used in real life situations to indicate an unhealthy interest in something dangerous that will inevitably lead to harm.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Fascinate has several definitions. “draw irresistibly the attention and interest of (someone)”, ” to command the interest of ”

      As a fellow academic of sorts, I share David’s flaw, such as it is, in using the term fascination. As a lifelong working scientist and having worked with a lot of other ones, we often express fascination with natural processes. When we drove to Golden, CO yesterday I was fascinated with the sight of what looked like large basalt sills at the top of Table Mountain just east of the Front Range and started to wonder what process put them there. Turns out they are 60-64 million years old so that gives me a hint as to where to start to look for a geological process.

      I never saw that as a flaw, to be honest. Let’s not read too much into this.


      • I don’t think it’s reading too much into this to believe that anti-firearms folks use “fascination” as a pejorative when referring to pro-firearms folks. Along with other seemingly innocuous or seemingly positive words, it’s used to portray pro-firearms folks as less intelligent, less knowledgeable, less mature, and/or less worldly.

        When discussing your reaction when beholding the result of natural processes, you’re using the term in a positive context, not a negative one. I don’t think the two situations are comparable.

        Not to put words into your mouth or tell you how you were feeling when you saw Table Mountain, but if someone asked me to describe your reaction, I would have said you were intrigued. That’s probably quibbling over how we each perceive the use of those words, though.


      • Both good points. I do use fascination myself with positive connotation. Other uses have a negative connotation, albeit subtle. Context of use matters. Respect the hermeneutics of suspicion!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scrappy, I have no doubt that the anti-crowd will put a bad light on anything I say if it has to do with firearms. David found out the hard way. I agree with your point but I guess mine is that we have to respond by taking charge of the rhetoric from the rhetorical hijackers. Now if David would stop using those big words like hermeneutics, we knuckle-dragging, easily fascinated gun owners might understand him…



        Liked by 1 person

  2. As I see it that my ownership of firearms is a basic part of what makes me an American in the same way as the other 9 of the 10 Bill of Rights does. Now I do not deny someones choice to not exercise one of those 10 however I will oppose any effort to take away my choice and defend there choice.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.