On “The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners” by the National Rifle Association

The political power of the National Rifle Association (NRA) is both frustrating to and badly misunderstood by many of its critics (as I highlighted recently in response to PBS Frontline’s program on the NRA).

According to Barnard College political scientist Matthew Lacombe, much of the legislative strength of the NRA is due to its ability to politically mobilize guns owners on its behalf. And key to that political “weaponization” has been the cultivation of “gun owner” as a social identity in the first place. (An identity I reflected on from my own perspective in my previous post.)

Here I discuss his recently published article, “The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners: The National Rifle Association’s Cultivation, Dissemination, and Use of a Group Social Identity.” Unfortunately the article is not available open access, but if you would like a copy for educational purposes, let me know.

I can’t give a blow-by-blow overview of everything Lacombe does in this article (even if I understood all of his methods, which I don’t). So I want to highlight those aspects I found most interesting.

One popular social psychological theory of identity (associated with Henri Tajfel)  maintains that personal identity is grounded in various social identities which are based on social group membership (race/ethnic groups, religions, nationalities, occupations, etc.). Cultivation of social identity emphasizes in-group vs. out-group comparisons (“we” vs. “they,” positive vs. negative characteristics).

Are these same dynamics apparent in the cultivation of “gun owner” as a social identity by the NRA? Analyzing editorials in The American Rifleman, the NRA’s flagship publication, from 1930 to 2008, Lacombe answers “yes.” He identifies the central positive characteristics used to describe gun owners: “average citizens who obey the law and love America” (p. 1347).

More specifically, Lacombe’s meticulous analysis finds the 10 most frequent positive in-group descriptors of gun owners in Rifleman editorials are: law abiding, peaceable, patriotic, courageous, honest, average citizen(s), ordinary citizen(s), brave, freedom loving, and reputable (p. 1347).

Although these associations are very common today — I often use them myself — Lacombe rightly observes that “most of the in-group words defined above are not inherently related to gun ownership” (p. 1348). Indeed, “bad guys with guns” own guns, too. To the extent that people see these positive in-group characteristics and gun ownership as inherently related, this is a result of the conscious effort to cultivate such a connection.

Beyond the cultivation of the gun owner identity, Lacombe establishes that the identity was subsequently disseminated and politically activated. Using some advanced techniques I cannot claim to fully understand to analyze newspaper letters to the editor written by gun owners, Lacombe shows that the use of positive in-group descriptors in Rifleman editorials preceded their use by gun owner.

Whether you’re interested in the NRA’s role in politics or not, if you want to understand guns and gun culture in the US, it is important to think about the origins and dimensions of “gun owner” as a social identity beyond checking a box on a survey. Matthew Lacombe’s work provides an excellent point of entry into this complex issue. I am looking forward to reading more of it.

4 thoughts on “On “The Political Weaponization of Gun Owners” by the National Rifle Association

  1. I’m not a sociologist and don’t play one on TV, but suspect a lot of what drives gun owners into a “culture” is the attack on gun ownership, which forces people to circle the wagons and become politically active (or at least send money to the NRA) to keep from being legislated out of existence. If the Green New Deal folks obtain sufficient power try to legislate today’s cars out of existence, my guess is that car ownership will become another case of people strongly identifying as being “us” or “them” out of worries that they will have to turn in that SUV and drive a tiny electric vehicle, whether they want to or not.

    But what do I know?


    • Yes it seems to me that the NRA only has to mobilize gun owners because gun control efforts. Before that they could be content to hold rifle matches in NY and NJ. But I am not a historian and I didnt stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.


  2. Pingback: New Data on New Gun Owners and Gun Policy Preferences | Gun Curious

  3. “Indeed, ‘bad guys with guns’ own guns, too.”

    Two things:
    1) Bad guys with guns probably identify as ‘bad guys’ first. The ‘with guns’ is almost an honorific, like ‘-issimo’ at the end of an Italian title. It’s an instrumentality of, and an emphasis on, ‘bad.’ Calling them gun owners, too, is to miss what the non-bad gun owners identify about themselves. Factually, they own guns. As a matter of perception of self and of overall role in society, antithetical.

    2) Some crime studies stress that violent criminals are a very small subset of the population, compared to “law-abiding gun owners.” And a highly aberrant one. And a subset of the population that the rest of society normally, normatively, admittedly is willing to identify, isolate, remove, and punish. We are about to see what happens when a significant portion of society declines to so admit.


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 )

Connecting to %s

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