Some misunderstandings around the series of posts I have begun on “The Master Narrative of Democracy-Destroying Right-Wing Gun Culture” make me realize I need to explain a bit more about how this dominant paradigm in the field of gun studies relates to my own work on gun culture.
On thing I have always done well as a scholar is digesting and systematizing research in a particular field. Looking at Google Scholar, the four works I have published since 1994 that have the most citations by other scholars are all efforts to make sense of an area of research as opposed to being original research in themselves: my sociology of religion textbook (2015), an intervention into the secularization paradigm in the sociology of religion (1997), a proposal for how to study religious experience (2000), and my initial foray into “The Sociology of US Gun Culture” (2017).
Being flooded by an outpouring of research into guns and gun culture, I have felt compelled from the start to try to understand how these works relate to each other. When I see many works in a field connected to each other by key theoretical presuppositions, concepts, empirical procedures, and exemplary studies, I see what philosopher of science Thomas Kuhn called a “paradigm.”
In my 12 years of wandering around the interdisciplinary field of gun studies, I have identified two paradigms. I call these The Standard Model of Explaining the Irrationality of Defensive Gun Ownership and The Master Narrative of Democracy-Destroying Right-Wing Gun Culture.
(I think these actually may be two aspects of the same paradigm, but I have yet to conceptualize such a Grand Unified Theory of Guns in America yet.)
I do not claim to have created these paradigms nor do I endorse them. My research on guns, gun owners, and gun culture actually departs quite considerably from them.
What I have done is read as much of the research in the field as possible and attempt to systematize it in a way that is helpful to me and to others. For example, I frame my discussion of defensive gun ownership in my Sociology of Guns class by talking about The Standard Model. If I write another book on American gun culture, I will orient it to The Master Narrative.
Are The Standard Model and The Master Narrative real? In my view, absolutely. Do these two paradigms encompass all of the work being done on guns? Of course not. Do they reduce the complexity of the works include? Of course.
Is systematizing scholarship in gun studies in the way I have useful? For me, definitely. YMMV.
Gun Culture 2.0 
I think it is a useful endeavor. I think of it in terms of the use of hierarchical latent variable analysis when looking at psychological phenomena, trying to identify common and unique variance. In this case, I would consider each of the books, articles, or other sources as first order factors, which may have some unique variance, but largely reflect common elements of the overarching narrative.
Of course, in this case, I suspect the higher order construct/narrative starts with a conviction that is not necessarily supported by research. Indeed, the overarching factor is likely one of belief. Then each presentation has some element of confirmation bias, finding/citing evidence that fits the belief and discounts/ignores inconsistent evidence.
It is difficult to invalidate an argument that is based on strong emotion and belief. It seems clear Shapira’s piece is an example of this*. In today’s climate, there are many such positions, where the acceptance of some master narrative has little to do with data and the questioning of said narrative is actively dissuaded. The idea of “believe the science” falls apart when each element has its own science and constructive debate is frowned upon.
Nonetheless, I think identifying those overarching assumptions is important for understanding the phenomenon.
Just MHO.
*Most of us who are trained, both in the military and civilian worlds, may believe that threat is always possible, but also live fruitful, caring, social and prosocial lives filled with pleasant interactions, even with “strangers.” His apparent inability to do so or acknowledge that others do so, leads him to posit a problem based on his own belief and psychological health. Did he say the same during COVID when the master narrative was all of those around you were a threat – especially those who debated or “questioned the science”? Hard to imagine him accepting that “Guns are normal, and normal people use guns.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
I do have a problem with the two works you mentioned as they seem to at the research with the conclusion in mind and then set about to “prove” it. I have seen this problem with a good number of PhD students and also in published studies. So I question just how real these viewpoints are or maybe I should say I question how useful these viewpoints are except maybe to identify where the biases are.
LikeLiked by 2 people
There seems to be a bit of that master narrative inferred from a small data set or asserted via one’s own biases. The vast majority of people I know who own guns, even for self defense, are otherwise normal people who are happy to have constructive, positive social interactions with friends and strangers. Where I think gun carriers diverge from non-gun people is in assuming that if trouble does come to them, it will come faster than the police.
There was a good article in today’s Albuquerque Journal about a man who shot and killed a criminal who was in the process of stabbing a cop to death down in the Duke City. The “good guy with a gun” was interviewed after the DA cleared him of any wrongdoing. His angst was that he wishes this situation that led to him shooting someone had never happened. I suspect that would be true of most of us.
https://www.abqjournal.com/news/las-cruces-police-ids-witness-who-shot-officer-jonah-hernandezs-killer-da-will-not-press/article_b0eaaac4-d732-11ee-b05d-c379d8fb3fff.html
snip:
Astorga (the good guy with a gun) went on to say that he wished the incident never happened.
“I, unfortunately, had the burden of being a part of that tragedy, and it will follow me the rest of my life,” he said. “I truly wish that the events that happened that day never occurred. If I could go back in time and prevent any of this from happening, I would in a heartbeat.”
Astorga said he hopes “that as a community, we can help each other to prevent anything like this from ever happening again.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sorry, that incident was in Las Cruces. But covered by the Journal. Oops.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Do you have a copy of Brian Anse Patrick’s “Rise of the Anti-Media: In-forming American’s Concealed Weapon Carry Movement”?
I think he describes your unifying theory. Or at least the unifying motivation. He calls it “Administrative Control Bias.” There are people for whom “There Ought to be a Law” is their go-to. Most of the people who go into government are from this group. They aren’t afraid of guns per se, they’re afraid of things not being controllable. That’s why the old school ACLU got such terrible press. They were consistently opposing state power, same as the NRA.
https://amzn.to/49C3EYt
It’s an interesting read.
LikeLiked by 1 person