MILESFORTIS

Psychiatrist Says America Must ‘Dismantle the Cult of the Gun’

I’m often bemused when academics write about gun owners as if we’re some exotic species to be investigated and examined to see what makes us tick, as opposed to their friends, family members, and co-workers.

Dr. Tamir Rahman, an associate professor of psychiatry at Washington University is the latest to channel his inner Jane Goodall and unleash it on American gun owners. In a new piece at Psychology Today, Rahman says it’s time to shift our relationship with firearms.

America’s relationship with firearms has mutated into a paradox. What began as a practical right tied to hunting and self-defense has metastasized into a near-religious reverence, transforming firearms into sacred objects. For many, guns are no longer tools—they are symbols of identity, power, and defiance. While this cultural fixation has fostered community among gun owners, it has also exacerbated the nation’s inability to address the epidemic of gun violence. Reimagining this relationship is not merely an ideal—it is a necessity.

In contemporary America, guns are more than objects. They are badges of liberty, resistance, and power. This shift has been fueled by political rhetoric, cultural narratives, and media representation. For many, owning a firearm is a declaration of values, a statement that screams: “I am free. I am powerful.”

Rahman claims that in order to “address its gun violence epidemic”, the U.S. “must dismantle the cult of the gun”; reframing firearms from symbols of power to tools of responsibility. Rahman offers several suggestions on how to make that happen.

1. Empowering Parents, Educators, and Schools

Parents, educators, and schools are at the forefront of shaping how future generations perceive firearms. Instead of shunning discussions about guns, schools can foster informed and responsible attitudes by integrating firearm education into the curriculum. This approach does not advocate normalization but instead focuses on demystification and accountability.

Why not advocate normalization? After all, as sociologist and gun owner David Yamane says, gun ownership is normal and normal people own guns. Demystifying guns is important, and there’s nothing objectionable about Rahman’s call to integrate firearm education into the curriculum, so long as its not aimed at making gun ownership and responsible gun use taboo.

2. Bridging the Polarization Through Shared Values

The polarizing debate over gun ownership often pits gun rights against gun control, creating an impasse. However, addressing the extreme overvalued beliefs surrounding firearms can provide common ground. Both sides can unite around shared values: responsibility, safety, and the prevention of violence.

Can we really, though? The gun control lobby’s foundational premise is that guns are bad, fewer guns are good, and criminalizing basic aspects of our Second Amendment rights is beneficial to society.

In theory Rahman is right that both sides should be able to come together on policies and practices that don’t involve putting new gun laws on the books, but so long as gun control groups view firearms themselves as a problem that needs to be solved I don’t think there’s much common ground to be found.

Rahman is guilty of that himself. Even when he discounts the push for gun bans, he does so in a way that’s not going to draw much support from gun owners and Second Amendment advocates.

While discussions about banning firearms often arise, such measures alone are not conducive to changing America’s deeply ingrained gun culture. Prohibition risks intensifying polarization and deepening the symbolic power of firearms as emblems of resistance. Instead, the focus should shift toward reshaping attitudes through education, accountability, and responsible ownership.

Fostering a culture that values the ethical use of firearms over their glorification addresses gun violence without alienating lawful owners. This collective action acknowledges complexity, cultivating respect and responsibility to transform perspectives sustainably.

Yes, prohibition intensifies polarization and helps to turn firearms into “emblems of resistance”. Rahman, however, fails to address why that is: banning guns is an abhorrent violation of a fundamental civil right that should be resisted.

Rahman seems very invested in the idea of changing the attitudes of gun owners, but he should be equally or more concerned about changing the mindset of anti-gun activists. I’m not convinced that there’s a “cult of the gun” in the United States, but I know there’s a cult of the gun prohibitionists, and any effort to shift the American relationship with firearms has to start with those trying to eradicate that relationship altogether.