I would agree that over half of America’s history (if you count colony days too) was spent with a significant number of people having to live in hostile environments with a lack of authoritarian law and order and having to fend for themselves. I mean, Europe from say 1750 to 1900 was more bloody by any measure, but it was from organized wars, not bands of out laws or justifiably hostile Native Americans, or even wild life. So to say our “frontier” history is a factor, I would agree. But then again, why doesn’t Europe’s love of war until recently appear to be a factor?
But I would say the more modern “way” of doing crime AND enforcement from after the turn of the century is a more relevant factor. I mean just looking it up, England and Wales executed 632 people from 1900 to 1949, compared to 6639 in the US. And for an idea of population size, the UK had about 40 million and the US 76 million in 1900. So as you can see, the APPROACH was vastly different. In short, the stakes were higher, the tensions elevated; violence was seen as part of the “job”. Cops had no problem shooting you in the back or beating the shit out of you when caught. And then the money to be made during Prohibition further upped the stakes.
I think an even bigger factor today, is that America is good at segregating its poor, allowing them to fester, amplifying a bad situation and making it worse. Doubly so for our poor minorities, with actual legal segregation until very recently. We still have horrible segregation in areas to this day (Fun fact: in areas that had segregation that wasn’t technically due to laws in the north, they never became desegregated). One can see this has had a big impact both in the mid century when crime started to climb, and today. Gee, less opportunities and resources, surrounded by people wanting them to “stay in their lane”, and one wonders why we have some horrible outliers in violence in most large cities even compared to the rest of the US.
I won’t disagree that firearms are used as symbols of both freedom and mascalinity. But what is inherent about freedom and mascalinity that makes one want to commit crimes and hurt others? Nothing. Now, one could say that a TOXIC version of mascalinity makes one want to over compensate with aggression and harm others. So I will agree some of these people are using guns as tool to perpetuate toxic masculinity.
I suppose it can’t be COMPLETELY divorced from it. But it is far enough removed from MOST people to not be relevant. I can say the that vast majority - “the mainstream part of the culture” [which there is no mono-culture, but I’ll put that aside] - have zero desire to hurt someone else. I know you can find me examples of Zimmermans, and one’s uncle who lives in a compound, and jackasses on youtube to bolster your point. But in the big picture it is no different than people posting every news article every time an illegal immigrant does more than jaywalk to make their points about how too many of them are “bad hombre”.
I think that is a decent analogy, because the vast majority of men aren’t the problem. But at the same time, the topic gets push back because some people are confusing specific negative traits with men in general. They feel their identity is being attacked and they lashed out, which actually makes the problem worse.
Yes, in the rural areas you have much more use for firearms because there are more critters. As well as space and freedom to use them. I and the people I shoot with are all Urban gun owners. We live around Kansas City but I did grow up in smallish towns, however. So that means we have to go out to organized ranges, and perhaps take part in organized shooting sports. Actually less chance for shenanigans.
But still, none of the people I shoot with have any of the 4 attitudes listed in the original post. Just the opposite. They are all extremely safety conscious, including one who is a USPSA Grand Master who teaches courses. Two of them are also into martial arts of various forms, including one who teaches Filipino stick fighting. But he also carries $50 of “don’t kill me” money in his wallet at all times. No one I know is looking to shot anyone in self defense. But they are prepared in case something bad happens. In the current climate, my Filipino friend is married to a Jewish woman with a bi-racial child. My coworker has been asking about defense because his wife and their bi-racial children have been targeted more than once since Trump was elected. So maybe it is a fair point that urban owners think about defense more, but we live around a lot more assholes 
But I don’t think we are WANTING to hurt anyone.
Or maybe you’re talking about stuff like those cringe inducing “lacking” videos. Yeah, those are horrible, but I’ve seen bad handling from “rednecks” as well. So while I did concede there were people with those 4 traits, they aren’t the majority.
Oh man - were you trying to be ironic? And why do I need a citation and not the four points raised? Where is th citation to back up “…but from what research I’ve seen, I’d say those are typical attitudes”?
OK the evidence that those 4 attitudes are not common among the majority of gun owners is - with 80 million owners there is a fraction of a faction of a percent killing others on purpose or accidentally. If we were all just waiting to kill a “mother fucker” while twirling our Pistoleros, there would be a lot more dead people. But no, most people take it seriously.
And if I too am allowed to use anecdotal evidence, then its actually knowing and interacting with people who shoot - not just what I see in memes, pop culture, or cringy idiots on youtube doing stupid stuff. Shit, they are the first to point out unsafe handling and all people idiots. So yes, there is room for improvement.
Like I said, you can find a plethora of negative examples that matches the stereotype. But like most stereotypes, they don’t align with actual reality.
