Report

Paranoia and Profit: Armed Extremism and the Gun Industry’s Role in Fostering It

7.12.2024

Introduction

Racist shooters in Buffalo, Allen, Charleston, El Paso and Jacksonville turn grocery stores, outlet malls, churches, Walmarts, and Dollar General stores into scenes of mass carnage; antisemitic extremists attack synagogues; heavily-armed militia members plot to kidnap the governor of Michigan; far-right groups and individuals openly march with guns to intimidate political opposition.

These incidents underscore the alarming trend of political and hate-motivated gun violence confronting the United States. One sector has accelerated this trend of armed extremism while simultaneously profiting from it: the firearms industry. The industry and its lobbying apparatus have for decades warned target audiences of unhinged existential threats all around them, from supposed criminal hordes threatening their homes to tyrannical bureaucrats threatening their rights. They politically and financially support candidates for office and elected officials who have echoed those conspiracy theories, striking at the foundational pillars of American democracy, while eschewing gun laws that might keep military-grade arms out of the hands of dangerous individuals.

Toxic hate-filled ideas have gained unprecedented purchase in today’s political climate thanks to their embrace by gun lobby-backed political leaders. As a result, a small but alarming number of Americans see violence as a solution to political and cultural problems.¹

In the face of these supposed threats, the firearms industry offers a single solution for those who feel at risk: guns, and the deadly violence they can achieve. The rhetoric in their advertising risks drawing the attention of those who see violence as inevitable or justified, including portrayals of their products as weapons used in war. It is clear that violent extremists see guns as important tools: Everytown has identified more than 200 extremists charged with a crime in recent years who allegedly used or possessed guns in the act, threatened or plotted gun violence, or illegally possessed or sold a firearm, an approximate average of one case charged every nine days. The vast majority of these cases involved extremists on the far right, and more than a quarter involved a crime in which a gun was fired or brandished.

Meanwhile, the industry works with its political allies to make these weapons available to anyone, anywhere, at any time, demonizing those who want to keep firearms out of the hands of dangerous people as agents of the supposed threats facing American society (e.g. “‘they’ are coming to take your guns”). Those demonizing messages are often integrated into the extremist worldview, creating connective tissue between extremist movements and the gun lobby: those who believe in the demonizing conspiracy theories pushed by the gun lobby may be primed to believe in other conspiracy theories, and vice versa.

Guns are not ancillary tools to extremist movements in America; instead, guns undergird many of the movements’ organizational and philosophical foundations. The increasing convergence of these movements is alarming and yet the leaders of the gun lobby have continued to encourage it.

In this time of particular political uncertainty the U.S. still faces a confluence of dangerous challenges from white supremacists, anti-government militias, and other armed groups and individuals of the extreme right that seek to perpetrate violence, spread conspiracy theories, traffic in hate speech, and engage in armed intimidation. The current risk of political violence is high.

This report builds on Everytown’s research on armed extremism to provide new insights and data about the current threat and the under-appreciated nexus between the gun lobby, gun industry, and far-right extremist movements.

Section I defines the threat and lays out the stakes. Section II examines how the gun lobby and gun industry fan the flames of extremist ideology, creating a type of feedback loop of conspiracy, distrust in institutions, and a perpetual need for more and more guns. Section III provides evidence that guns remain the tool of choice for extremists, from recent extremist attacks, arrest data, and armed demonstrations.

I. The Persistent Threat From Armed Extremism

A. What Is Armed Extremism?

Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (“Everytown”) uses the term “armed extremism” in work exploring the intersection of extremist ideologies and guns. It refers to the use of firearms, most often by groups on the extreme right, to intimidate, silence, or injure others in the name of ideology.

Guns and gun rights are central to many extreme right groups and individuals. Everytown’s 2020 report on the historical connection between gun rights and extremism, entitled “Armed & Dangerous: How the Gun Lobby Enshrines Guns as Tools of the Extreme Right,” concluded that the toxic mix of conspiracy theories, guns, and far-right extremism around the 2020 election would likely serve as an accelerant for extreme right violence in the United States. Indeed, an unprecedented undermining of political and institutional legitimacy by elected leaders reinforced far-right conspiracy theories that have been amplified by the gun lobby for years.

The January 6, 2021 insurrection opened the eyes of the world to the growing threat of extremism in the United States. As discussed in a later section, the attack on the U.S. Capitol is the most glaring—but far from the only—demonstration of the danger armed extremism poses to our democracy. But from a broader lens, January 6 was a culmination of decades of extreme right conspiracy theories such as the supposedly looming threat of government authoritarianism and mass confiscation of guns that resulted in a belief that the democratic transfer of power was in fact a ruse that warranted taking up arms against the government.

As Everytown has previously documented, firearms and related conspiracy theories have been central to the ideology and strategies of extreme right groups like the Oath Keepers and Proud Boys. While these extremist groups have not disbanded, many of their leaders have been convicted of felonies (including, in some cases, seditious conspiracy) relating to January 6 and face significant prison time. These specific groups’ public and digital footprint appear smaller now than in the weeks leading up to the January 6 insurrection.

However, the diminishment of these groups does not mean the threat has abated. In fact, research has shown that the majority of those arrested in connection with January 6 were not necessarily members of such large established extremist organizations¹, suggesting that the diminution of specific groups does not spell the end of this kind of extremist threat. Far-right propaganda and radicalizing conspiracy theories are once again taking center stage in our national discourse. Furthermore, white supremacist violence remains a pressing issue, as evidenced by mass shootings in recent years in Buffalo, New York; Allen, Texas; and Jacksonville, Florida. Violent misogyny is also a longstanding threat, as profiled in Everytown’s report “Misogyny, Extremism, and Gun Violence.”

Government and national security experts continue to warn of the threat.

In September 2019, for the first time since its inception, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) named white supremacist extremism “one of the most potent forces driving domestic terrorism” in the United States.² Two months later, FBI Director Christopher Wray testified before the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs that domestic terrorism posed a “serious, persistent threat,” and that the FBI’s investigations into domestic, racially motivated extremist attacks conclude that the majority are “fueled by some kind of white supremacy.”³
A March 2021 unclassified report from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence indicated that lone domestic violent extremists “will continue to pose significant detection and disruption challenges because of their capacity for independent radicalization to violence, ability to mobilize discreetly, and access to firearms.”⁴
In October 2022, the Department of Homeland Security, FBI, U.S. Capitol Police, and National Counterterrorism Center released a joint bulletin warning of election-related domestic violent extremism.⁵ It read, in part, “Following the 2022 midterm election, perceptions of election-related fraud and dissatisfaction with electoral outcomes likely will result in heightened threats of violence against a broad range of targets―such as ideological opponents and election workers.”⁶
A May 2023 bulletin from the Department of Homeland Security’s National Terrorism Advisory System further warned of the heightened threat environment due to “[b]oth domestic violent extremists (DVEs) and those associated with foreign terrorist organizations.”⁷ The bulletin specifically noted, “Likely targets of potential violence include US critical infrastructure, faith-based institutions, individuals or events associated with the LGBTQIA+ community, schools, racial and ethnic minorities, and government facilities and personnel, including law enforcement.”⁸

B. The Impact of Armed Extremism and Hate-Motivated Violence Is Felt Throughout Targeted Communities

The impact of armed extremist violence or demonstrations of force reverberates beyond the individual community where it occurs. Given the centrality of ideology to armed extremist groups and armed extremist violence, this is often the intended result of extremist attacks and intimidation.

This is especially true for extremist attacks that are borne out of hatred of certain communities. The true impact of hate-motivated victimization—the experience of being targeted because of someone’s hatred of one’s identity—is graver than we know. While political leaders may promote these extreme ideologies through speech, there are many documented instances in which followers take that as a call to perpetrate physical violence on the communities they have come to believe are a threat. The vast majority of this violence targets communities of color, religious minorities, and LGBTQ+ people.⁹ Across the country, many extremists have committed hate-based violence to make their beliefs known, threatening and harming communities due to resentment about race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexuality.

Hate-based violence can occur indirectly or directly and as a single traumatic event or multiple persistent events. Existing research shows that hate crime victims experience emotional distress, nervousness, powerlessness, and isolation.¹⁰ Survivors of hate crimes also feel less safe for a more extended period than survivors of non-hate crimes.¹¹ Individuals from targeted groups are more likely to alter how they navigate their social environments in fear of future victimization.

The trauma from hate-motivated violence reverberates beyond individuals and their communities in the same geographic region. One study found that people who shared an identity with someone they knew who was victimized, or even someone they read about in the media, also experienced feelings of vulnerability.¹² For example, surveys have shown that shootings motivated by white supremacy have caused direct harm to feelings of safety and security for Black and Latinx people across the country. According to a nationwide Washington Post-Ipsos Poll conducted after the shooting at the Buffalo Jefferson Street Tops supermarket, 75 percent of Black Americans fear that they or someone they love will be physically attacked because of their race.¹³ In addition, following the El Paso shooting, Latinx adults were twice as likely as white people to say that they experienced mass shooting-related stress often.¹⁴ These findings illustrate that an act of hate-motivated violence can send the message that all members of the targeted identity group are neither welcome nor safe.¹⁵ And that is often the point.

Thus, it remains crucial that any discussion of extremism, especially that is borne out of hatred of certain communities, acknowledge and center the grief and pain associated with survivors of extremist violence.

II. The Gun Lobby and Gun Industry Fan the Flames of Extremist Ideology

While in recent years there has been significant attention paid to the problems of violent far-right extremism in the United States, the role that the gun lobby and firearms industry plays in exposing mainstream audiences to potentially radicalizing rhetoric has gone under-examined. The rhetoric from the industry and its political allies not only amplifies but actually feeds into extremist conspiracy theory mongering that could lead to violence.

A. Dangerous Rhetoric From Gun Lobby and Industry Risks Extremist Feedback Loop

For many of the most dangerous extremists, those who plan or actually carry out deadly attacks against their perceived enemies, firearms are not just tools to kill or wound. They have integrated gun rights conspiracy theories into their extremist worldview, believing in a supposed all-out assault on gun rights as an element of the totalitarian plot against them. The firearms industry and its representatives in the gun lobby have seemingly sought to leverage the far right’s fervor for firearms for their own financial and political interests. In doing so, they feed into the conspiratorial mindset of extremists, potentially leading to an escalating feedback loop in which the most radical extremists see any effort to regulate firearms as an existential threat deserving of a violent response.

This feedback loop provides a clear logical framework through which we can understand how guns factor into the extremist conspiratorial mindset.

The firearms industry and its representatives in the gun lobby risk an escalating feedback loop in which the most radical extremists see any effort to regulate firearms as an existential threat deserving of a violent response.

As expert J.M. Berger has noted, “[e]xtremism refers to the belief that an in-group’s success or survival can never be separated from the need for hostile action against an out-group.”¹⁶ For those on the far right, their extremist worldview is driven by a series of often overlapping conspiracy theories which lead them to view their in-group, generally white Christian Americans, as facing an existential threat from a shadowy cabal. As Berger writes, “[T]he in-group begins to see the out-group as an unmitigated threat to its legitimacy. The threat creates a crisis, a pivotal event that requires an active response from the in-group. The extremist in-group offers a solution, consisting of hostile actions against an out-group in an effort to resolve the crisis.” […] “To build the narrative of a crisis, real conflicts—such as political disputes or violent clashes between the in-group and out-group—are mixed with imagined or fabricated information.”¹⁷

Those conspiracy theories often lead extremists to conclude that the cabal has co-opted and compromised the democratic institutions through which they would otherwise seek protection. For example, many white supremacists not only believe that a global Jewish cabal is trying to replace white people in a “genocide,” but that the cabal is in complete control of the world’s governments to carry out the conspiracy. Similarly, anti-government extremists believe agents and institutions of government and those on the political left are subverting democracy to enslave the American people.

This mental framework leads the most dangerous extremists to conclude that violence is inevitable or even justified: if there is no democratic institution to turn to protect the extremist in-group from the existential threat, then force is the only option to respond. This mindset is so foundational to some of the far right that it has been co-opted as a mantra: “There is no political solution.”¹⁸

For extremists looking to prepare for or even carry out widespread violence, firearms are the most obvious tool: they are instruments of death whose manufacturers have consistently developed new features to make them even deadlier. Most importantly, they are relatively inexpensive and staggeringly easy to acquire in the United States. The man who shot and killed 10 Black patrons at a supermarket in Buffalo, New York in May 2022 wrote in his 180-page diatribe that he chose to use firearms because “[t]here are very few weapons that are easier to use, accessible, and effective at killing.”¹⁹

Marketing to the civilian market by the firearms industry appeals to these desires to obtain efficient killing machines. Far from marketing their products as tools of last resort that carry a heavy burden of responsibility, many in the firearms industry choose to directly raise the specter of war in their advertising targeting civilian consumers. As The New York Times wrote about manufacturer Daniel Defense²⁰: “By 2009, the company had expanded to making guns for consumers. Its military ties were the basis of its marketing, which often featured heavily armed fighters. ‘Use what they use,’ one ad says. Another shows a military-style scope aimed at passing cars on what looks like a regular city street. Others include references — using hashtags and catchphrases — to the ‘Call of Duty’ video game.”

In these ads, companies regularly feature their products in the hands of warfighters, underscoring to civilian consumers the products’ ability to inflict damage appropriate to a warzone. One notorious ad from Bushmaster promoted one of its assault rifles as “the ultimate military combat weapons system,” warning “Forces of opposition, bow down. You are single-handedly outnumbered.”²¹ For extremists, especially those who anticipate or eagerly await widespread violence or civil war, these messages can be particularly appealing: if one expects to be fighting a war against the U.S. government, why not “use what they use?”

Indeed, marketing guidance by the industry trade group National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF) implies that gun makers could capitalize on distrust within communities and social unrest—including the possibility of further gun restrictions and confiscation—to market their products.²² Industry market research bares this out. A 2024 analysis by Shooting Industry lists “global unrest” and “domestic politics” as two of the top three drivers to consumers purchasing more guns.²³ More examples of problematic industry advertising are discussed later in this section, but the bottom line is that the industry knows fear-mongering around politics sells more guns.

It is all too common for extremists to not only buy guns, but stockpile arsenals. In their imagining, an existential threat posed to their in-group by a shadowy and often all-powerful cabal requires a response that involves as much violent force as possible. Therefore, in order to respond to the conspiracy against them, they need unfettered access to any and as many firearms as possible.

Once they have concluded that firearms are the tool they need to violently respond to the conspiracy against them, far-right extremists see a new impediment: legal regulation of gun ownership. Given the high stakes, far-right extremists often become ardent opponents of any regulation of firearms ownership. This makes them easy allies with the gun lobby and the gun industry, which for decades have used rhetoric and iconography popular with extremists. The policy preferences of the industry’s trade association—the NSSF—and the largest gun lobby organization—the NRA—are largely identical. For example, both oppose proposals from limits on high-capacity magazines, to background checks on all gun sales, to restriction on assault weapons, to red flag laws to disarm those who might be a risk to their community.

For decades, the gun lobby has not only advocated for firearms policies that enable extremists to arm themselves, it has spread radicalizing messaging that neatly conforms to the far right’s conspiratorial worldview. In that time, the gun lobby has consistently painted efforts to pass any regulation of firearms ownership as a conspiracy against gun owners and everyday Americans. These conspiracy theories often dovetail with the far right’s own conspiracy theories: most often they allege that there is a conspiracy led by boogeymen ranging from George Soros to the media writ large to strip Americans not only their gun rights, but their right to self-defense altogether.²⁴ Leaders from the gun lobby then warn that these rights, and the threat of widespread gun violence from citizens, are the only things stopping tyrants-in-waiting from denying all rights.

Such fear-mongering by groups like the NRA has been crucial to their financial and political strategy. Case Western Reserve University’s Matthew Lacombe has found through analysis of decades of NRA publications that the organization “strategically uses threat to mobilize its members, simultaneously portraying their identity as under attack while also asking them to actively defend gun rights.”²⁵ One former NRA executive claimed that Wayne LaPierre had put it more plainly behind closed doors: if the organization needed to raise more money, he “would just pour ‘gasoline on the fire’” with more extreme and alarmist rhetoric.²⁶

Once an extremist believes the propaganda that any regulation of gun ownership is part of a conspiracy against them, that belief can be easily integrated into the conspiratorial worldview that began the feedback loop. For instance, these ideas are readily integrated into the far right’s other conspiracy theories. In fact, conspiracy theories around gun laws are a foundational element of the anti-government extremist worldview. For white supremacists, efforts to regulate guns are often portrayed as a part of the Jewish plot to dominate Christian Americans,²⁷ a view that leaders in the gun lobby have repeatedly gestured toward.²⁸ For example, in 2016, then-longtime NRA board member Ted Nugent shared what the Southern Poverty Law Center described as “a photo collage of a dozen politicians and civic leaders with an Israeli flag and a conspiratorial or hate-filled comment superimposed over each,” claiming that those featured “would deny us the basic human right to self defense & to KEEP & BEAR ARMS.”²⁹

Once the gun rights conspiracy theories are integrated into the existing extremist worldview, they may serve as a further radicalizing element to push an individual closer to violent action. The role that gun rights conspiracy theories serve in radicalizing individual extremists, and the way that rhetoric from the firearms industry and its political allies may help spread and legitimize those conspiracy theories, should be a focus of future attention and scholarship.

B. The Firearm Industry and Lobby Not Only Assail the Enforcement of Gun Laws, Many Support Eliminating All Gun Laws Altogether

In “Armed & Dangerous: How the Gun Lobby Enshrines Guns as Tools of the Extreme Right,” Everytown chronicled the historical symbiosis between the gun lobby and extreme right politics. The NRA utilized the events at Waco and Ruby Ridge in the 1990s to galvanize supporters, demonizing the federal government, especially the ATF, in the process.

Indeed, recently departed NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre has long vilified the ATF and federal law enforcement, perhaps most infamously penning a 1995 fundraising letter stating “[i]t doesn’t matter to them that the semi-auto ban gives jack-booted government thugs more power to take away our Constitutional rights, break in our doors, seize our guns, destroy our property and even injure or kill us.”³⁰ The same letter went on to make reference to Nazi Germany, saying “Not too long ago, it was unthinkable for federal agents wearing Nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens.” More recently, in 2022, the NRA has alleged the ATF was being “weaponize[d]” against the gun industry, and that “President Biden is trying to make the agency into an anti-Second Amendment wrecking ball.”³¹

In a fundraising letter dated April 13, 1995, LaPierre referred to federal agents as “jack-booted government thugs,” saying it was no longer “unthinkable for Federal agents wearing nazi bucket helmets and black storm trooper uniforms to attack law-abiding citizens,” all while specifically referencing “Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge… Waco and the Branch Davidians."

Messaging from the industry trade group NSSF closely aligns with, if not mimics, the NRA’s. Like the NRA, the NSSF has spread “gun confiscation” conspiracy theories and repeatedly demonized the Biden administration for alleged authoritarianism. In its “fact sheet” denouncing background checks on all gun sales, the NSSF states that the ultimate “goal of registration for antigun advocates is confiscation of law-abiding owners’ firearms,” citing what happened in “Nazi Germany” and echoing NRA claims.³²

In fact, many leaders in the gun lobby and industry seem to oppose any and all regulation of firearms, calling all such laws unconstitutional and urging the elimination of the ATF.

In 2021, the NSSF’s Larry Keane was called out for repeating a false claim³³ that David Chipman, a nominee for ATF Director, had been part of the 1993 siege on the Branch Davidian complex in Waco.³⁴ According to the New York Times, NSSF published a post by Keane “showing a federal agent — falsely identified in a tabloid article as a young Mr. Chipman — standing in the smoldering debris of the Branch Davidian compound.”³⁵ While Keane claimed it was a mistake, some may look at that claim with skepticism given the far-right’s long obsession was demonizing the ATF.

Larry Keane photo — Larry Keane, senior vice president and general counsel of the National Shooting Sports Foundation (NSSF).

Keane regularly uses inflammatory rhetoric, such as saying that President Biden “would pursue an unconstitutional firearm confiscation agenda” when elected, “ending Second Amendment rights and reducing them to a nanny-state privilege that’s closely monitored and meted out piecemeal to a select few,”³⁶ and would “weaponize the ATF against retailers to close them down for even minor clerical errors in inspections.”³⁷ In reality, the ATF under the Biden administration has pledged to issue notice of revocations to licensed federal firearms retailers that, among other infractions, committed willful violations of federal law, including transferring a firearm to a person legally prohibited from owning a firearm, failing to run a required background check, and falsifying records—hardly “minor clerical errors.”

In fact, many leaders in the gun lobby and industry seem to oppose any and all regulation of firearms, calling all such laws unconstitutional and urging the elimination of the ATF, the federal law enforcement agency responsible for enforcing them. For decades, national gun rights groups like the NRA and their allies in Congress have assailed the ATF, limiting its budget and authority.³⁸ Now, many of these groups embrace eliminating the bureau altogether. While he was a member of NRA leadership, then-NRA 1st Vice President Willes Lee regularly called for the abolition of the ATF, statements including:

“ATF must go. No longer worthless, now a detriment to freedom. These people are sick.”³⁹;
“How about we just do away w[ith] ATF?”⁴⁰;
“Registration leads to confiscation? Could it happen here? IT ALREADY HAS. Don’t let it happen again. (Here’s looking at you ATF.) #destroytheregistry #abolishATF.”⁴¹

For years, far-right gun rights group Gun Owners of America has called for the abolition of the ATF,⁴² with their spokesperson confirming this position in a July 2022 congressional hearing.⁴³ In 2020, the organization posted a graphic calling for ATF to be defunded “out of existence.”⁴⁴

The similarly extreme Firearms Policy Coalition, which has previously sold merchandise to appeal to anti-government extremists,⁴⁵ has also called for the abolition of the ATF, repeatedly invoking the image of jackboots to compare the ATF to totalitarians. For example, in one tweet, they said that “ATF jackboots […] are far too willing to leverage their immunity and bring violence to peaceable people who simply wish to exercise their natural rights freely. We will not rest until their false ‘power’ is destroyed.”⁴⁶

Advertisements and social media postings from gun industry actors often echo extreme right ideology, in particular anti-government sentiment aimed at the ATF.

Polymer80, one of the largest manufacturers of ghost gun parts, has joined in calls to abolish the ATF.⁴⁷

Ammunition manufacturer Fenix Arms, known for advertising that appeals to extremists, has also called for the abolition of the ATF.⁴⁸ In response to an ATF regulation defining a short-barreled rifle and offering multiple avenues for legally possessing or disposing of such a weapon, the company falsely claimed that “[i]n exactly 8 days, the ATF will be able to murder you inside your own home for refusing to register a weapon you legally purchased months if not years prior. They’re playing chicken with our lives.” Other tweets from Fenix include:

The claim that the ATF is working with the CIA to arm Mexican cartels,⁴⁹
“The only people terrorizing the community is the ATF. Your goal as an American should be to do as many [things] enforced/controlled by the ATF as you can, on your own, without getting caught.”⁵⁰

The industry and its allies’ assault on reasonable gun regulations does not stop with abolishing the ATF: many have explicitly stated that they believe all gun laws are unconstitutional.

In recent years, many in the gun lobby have retreated to increasingly extreme positions, like advocating for civilian ownership of machine guns. This newfound questioning of previously uncontested points of national agreement runs in parallel with the questioning of democratic norms and institutions. Without any gun laws, there would be no legal impediments to convicted criminals or children of any age purchasing firearms.

The gun lobby has not been particularly subtle about this, with their official social media accounts declaring in 2023:

NRA: “ALL GUN CONTROL IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL.”⁵¹
Firearms Policy Coalition: “All gun laws are bullshit.”⁵²
Gun Owners of America: “Gun control is unconstitutional, and we REFUSE to compromise.”⁵³

Variations of the argument can also be found in various internet memes that circulate in right-wing spaces. Since 1934, the National Firearms Act has regulated machine guns and sawed-off shotguns, among other items. One Instagram post from gun manufacturer Kel-Tec implied that the law should be eliminated, with the caption “Hopefully some day… we’ll be 100% free again.”⁵⁴

C. Questionable Gun Industry Marketing References to Extremism and Extremist Narratives/Symbols

Separate and apart from vilification of the ATF and calls to eliminate all gun laws, some gun industry advertisements and social media posts have invoked extremist symbols or ideology. As The New York Times reported in 2022:⁵⁵ “Gun companies have spent the last two decades scrutinizing their market and refocusing their message away from hunting toward selling handguns for personal safety, as well as military-style weapons attractive to mostly young men. The sales pitch — rooted in self-defense, machismo and an overarching sense of fear — has been remarkably successful.”

The NSSF, the industry trade group, has not condemned such practices and in fact, one high-ranking official dodged the question during congressional testimony. During a July 2022 hearing of the House of Representatives Committee on Oversight and Reform, Christopher Killoy, the CEO of firearms manufacturer Sturm Ruger & Company and an NSSF board member, was asked about the marketing of firearms to extremists. While Killoy said that “we do not tolerate racism or white supremacy,” he refused to condemn industry “marketing to domestic terrorist threats.” He instead demurred on behalf of the industry trade group, claiming that “the National Shooting Sports Foundation does not control individual members’ companies or their ads.”⁵⁶

Hours after the acquittal of Kyle Rittenhouse, which was celebrated across the gun industry, large firearm retailer and NSSF SHOT Show exhibitor⁵⁷ Big Daddy Unlimited posted an image on Instagram⁵⁸ of Rittenhouse—portrayed as an “Urban Defender”—with the words “Be a Man Among Men.” As the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform reported, this was a “slogan of the Rhodesian colonist army, which has become a source of inspiration in white supremacist circles.”⁵⁹ The firearm retailer reportedly said the meme was created by a former employee who “did not understand the historical significance” of the slogan’s reference, but the company has not removed it from Instagram as of this writing.⁶⁰

*Big Daddy Unlimited’s Instagram image (left) compared to the Rhodesian army recruiting poster (right).*

Palmetto State Armory, a large South Carolina-based firearms manufacturer, retailer, NSSF member, and SHOT Show exhibitor,⁶¹ began selling a “Big Igloo Aloha” AK-47 with a Hawaiian-shirt-themed paint job associated with “boogaloo” extremists who eagerly plan for a second American civil war. Hawaiian shirts have become the unofficial uniform of these extremists, and “big igloo” is a play on “boogaloo,” their nickname for the anticipated civil war.⁶²

The company also offered a T-shirt depicting a boogaloo supporter guarding a pile of toilet paper rolls.⁶³ The shirt may be an attempt to poke fun at pandemic shortages, but it belies the fact that boogaloo extremists have committed multiple murders,⁶⁴ participated in the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol,⁶⁵ plotted the attempted kidnapping of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer,⁶⁶ and planned acts of domestic terrorism surrounding 2020’s racial justice protests.⁶⁷ The company has also offered lower receivers, the basic building blocks of AR-style rifles, with “meme” engravings of the Gadsden flag popular with extremists,⁶⁸ calls to “Build the Wall,” and “Let’s Go Brandon”—gun parts that, at best, trivialize the seriousness of owning a deadly weapon and, at worst, appeal to political extremists.⁶⁹

In 2018, Florida-based assault weapons manufacturer Spike’s Tactical posted an ad featuring armed civilians staring down a mob of individuals in balaclavas. The ad features the tagline “Not Today Antifa” and lists a number of locations where far-right activists clashed with leftist demonstrators, including the deadly 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, Virginia. The ad was roundly criticized for seemingly glorifying the far-right extremists at those events, which often included neo-Nazis and white supremacists,⁷⁰ but it remains up on the company’s social media accounts as of this writing.⁷¹ In fact, the company released the image as a poster amid the uproar.⁷²

III. Guns Are the Weapon of Choice for the Extreme Right

While similarly situated democracies also face issues with violent extremists, the United States is the only such country that makes it easy for extremists to arm themselves with arsenals of military-style and even untraceable firearms, often without a background check. Extremists continue to take advantage of America’s lax gun laws that allow them easy access to assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and other weaponry that increase lethality.

The industry offers a single solution to those who believe the fear-mongering, a solution it just so happens to sell: firearms.

An analysis by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) found that between 2012 and 2022, shootings accounted for three-quarters of the deaths at the hands of extremists.⁷³ A separate Everytown analysis of mass shootings between 2013 and 2022 indicates that 40% of the perpetrators of the 25 deadliest mass shootings were motivated by, or previously expressed support for, white supremacist extremism or violent misogyny.⁷⁴

A. Number of Arrests of Extremists Who Used, Threatened To Use, or Had Ready Access to Firearms Underscores Threat in Recent Years

As discussed above, there have been multiple examples of public research showing the prevalence of the use of guns by extremists in recent years in murders and terror plots. One metric that has gone relatively unexamined is the number of arrests of extremists who use or possess guns while committing an alleged crime or threaten or plot gun violence. Everytown has conducted a non-exhaustive survey of news reports and press releases to identify such cases that were either charged or resolved from 2017 through 2021.

These arrests were divided into eight different tiers of severity, discussed in greater detail below, which ranged from firing a gun during the commission of a crime to threatening gun violence to illegally possessing a firearm.

The tiers are as follows:

Fired a gun in the commission of a crime
Physically menaced others with a gun
Committed a crime with a gun on their person or in close proximity
Committed a crime while owning a firearm that was not in close proximity
Threatened or plotted gun violence while possessing a gun⁷⁵
Threatened or plotted a type of violence that was unspecified or other than gun violence while possessing a gun
Threatened or plotted gun violence while not possessing a gun
Illegally possessed or sold a firearm

The analysis of these incidents rely on facts alleged in court filings or reported in the media and do not necessarily require gun charges by a prosecutor.⁷⁶ The cases documented also include crimes, regardless of whether those crimes were determined to be ideologically motivated.⁷⁷

In total, 211 arrests of extremists who allegedly used or possessed firearms while committing crimes or threatened or plotted gun violence were identified between 2017 and 2021.⁷⁸ That is an approximate average of one case charged every nine days. Between 2017 and 2019, the number of cases decreased significantly from 40 to 23. In 2020, amid widespread civil and political unrest and record increases in firearms sales and deaths,⁷⁹ the number of extremist gun cases nearly tripled to 66. In 2021, there was a slight decline, but the number remained significantly higher than pre-pandemic years.

Tiers of Extremist Arrests Involving Guns by Date

As previous research has shown, the threat of violence from the far right in recent years has significantly outweighed violence from other extremist movements. This fact is borne out in the extremist arrest data: nearly 85 percent of the cases identified were brought against adherents of the far right. Just over ten percent were Islamist extremists, while the remaining 6 percent of arrestees were far-left extremists.

Extremists Arrested In Cases Involving Guns by Ideology

The particular danger posed by the far right is also legible in the number of cases in which extremists allegedly committed crimes while wielding firearms or having them promptly accessible, the most dangerous cases, captured in tiers 1 through 3 of the methodology: nearly three-quarters of those cases involved far-right extremists.

A look at extremists by sub-ideology further illuminates how far-right adherents were most frequently appearing in documented cases: seven in ten of the cases involve anti-government extremists or white supremacists and neo-Nazis.

Extremists Arrested by Sub-Ideology

NOTE: Some extremists had multiple sub-ideologies.

Last updated: 5.3.2024

Below is an examination of each tier in the dataset, the numbers of which are visible in the following graphic.

Tiers of Extremists Arrested in Cases Involving Guns

Tiers 1–3: Alleged Crimes in Which a Gun Was Wielded By or Immediately Accessible to an Extremist

Tier 1: Fired a gun in the commission of a crime

Tier 1 contains the most disturbing cases in the dataset, in which extremists allegedly fired their gun in the commission of the crime. That includes extremists like the perpetrator of the racist 2019 mass shooting at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas and the antisemitic 2018 mass shooting at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Nearly three-quarters of the Tier 1 cases were allegedly carried out by far-right extremists. Half of the cases were specifically white supremacists, like those in El Paso and Pittsburgh.

More than a third of all the Tier 1 cases involved an extremist who was legally prohibited from owning a firearm. Nearly half involved a gun that was illegal for the extremist to possess, either because they were legally prohibited from possessing any firearm or the gun had features like fully automatic fire capability that made it illegal for them to possess. For instance, Steven Carrillo, an adherent of the anti-government extremist boogaloo movement, shot and killed two law enforcement officers in separate incidents in 2020.¹ According to the complaint against him, the gun the extremist used in the shootings was an illegal short-barreled rifle converted into a machine gun and equipped with a silencer.² Since 1934, short-barreled rifles, machine guns, and silencers have been highly regulated and illegal to own without a tax stamp or license from the ATF.
Tier 2: Physically menaced others with a gun

Cases in Tier 2 were those in which extremists allegedly menaced others with firearms. Nearly two-thirds of these cases were by extremists on the far right. Many of these cases were instances of racist confrontations in which the perpetrators menaced members of marginalized groups with firearms, including at public demonstrations. The alarming trend of armed civilians at demonstrations is discussed later in this report. In one instance, a man in Miami responded to a demonstration for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day by confronting a group of Black teenagers, brandishing a handgun and repeatedly yelling the n-word.¹ In another case, a Colorado man, who had previously been convicted on illegal weapons charges, pointed a gun at a Native American man and accosted him with racial slurs, telling him to “go back to Mexico.”²
Tier 3: Committed a crime with a gun on their person or in close proximity

Tier 3 cases are ones in which an extremist committed a crime with a gun on their person or in close proximity. The overwhelming majority, 92 percent, of these cases implicated far-right extremists and many involved extremists arrested for drug trafficking operations. For instance, an Indiana member of a white supremacist prison gang and convicted felon was arrested on drug offenses relating to dealing methamphetamine. When he was arrested, he was in possession of 48 guns, including two fully automatic firearms.¹ Like this case, 85 percent of the Tier 3 cases involved an illegal weapon, and nearly half involved a convicted felon who was legally prohibited from owning a firearm. This is in part due to the fact that the cases regularly involved drug dealing in service of prison gangs.

Tier 4: Alleged Crimes Committed By Extremists Who Possessed Firearms That Were Not Immediately Accessible

Tier 4: Committed a crime while owning a firearm that was not in close proximity

The conditions for Tier 4 cases are identical to Tier 3, with the exception that the gun they possessed was not known to be in close proximity to the extremist when the crime or crimes were committed. Nearly all of these cases were of those arrested for their actions at the insurrection at the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. In more than half of those cases, there were allegations that the arrestees had brought firearms with them to the Washington, D.C., area for January 6. For instance, before Jason Dolan traveled from Florida to join his fellow Oath Keepers to Washington, D.C., he spoke with them about the need to bring firearms. Dolan later admitted that, in line with that conversation, he had brought an M4 rifle to the Washington, D.C. area and before going to the Capitol, stashed it at a nearby hotel¹ with the Oath Keepers “Quick Reaction Force.”² Another Oath Keeper arrested on charges relating to January 6 was not alleged to have brought firearms to Washington, D.C., but a later search of his home turned up two illegal firearms, more than 8,000 rounds of ammunition, and two hand grenades. He had posted a sign to federal law enforcement outside his home which warned that if they returned, they should “bring a bigger tactical package.”³

Tiers 5–7: Alleged Crimes Which Involved Threats of Violence By Extremists

Tiers 5, 6, and 7 all deal with threats or plots of violence. For inclusion in these categories, the threats or plots of violence do not necessarily need to have been criminally charged. Some cases are charging other crimes but there is evidence presented in news reporting or court filings that the extremist made threats or plotted violence. The plots are also not necessarily ideologically motivated: they may be interpersonal in nature, or a mixture of both.⁸⁰

Tier 5: Threatened or plotted gun violence while possessing a gun

Tier 5 contains cases in which an extremist who possessed a gun threatened or plotted gun violence. It is the tier with the second-largest number of cases with 41. These are obviously concerning instances as the possession of firearms gives extremists the imminent capability to carry out the threats and plots.

Far-right extremists accounted for 84 percent of Tier 5 cases, with Islamist extremists comprising the remainder. White supremacists and anti-government extremists are represented in roughly equal numbers. More than half of the cases involved an illegal gun or guns and at least eight of those charged were legally prohibited from owning a firearm.

One particularly dangerous example is that of Washington white supremacist Dakota Reed. In the lead up to December 2018, Reed regularly posted alarming messages online, including about his possession of firearms and his white supremacist-driven violent intentions. Using the white supremacist “echo”—the use of triple parentheses around a word or phrase to designate that thing as Jewish¹—Reed wrote online that he was “over here saving up to buy more guns and ammo to kill (((rats))) and animals.” He allegedly posted photos with three AR-15-style weapons, two hunting-style rifles, an AK-47-style rifle, a pump shotgun and at least one pistol. In another post, he wrote that his parents had asked him why he owned military-style firearms, to which he said he replied, “To kill people […] Why else would I own them?”² Reed was arrested and pleaded guilty to two counts of threats to bomb or injure property.³
Tier 6: Threatened or plotted a type of violence that was unspecified or other than gun violence while possessing a gun

Tier 6 cases, ones in which an extremist who possessed a gun was making threats or plots of violence other than gun violence or that were otherwise unspecified, are similarly concerning. As with almost all of the other tiers, far-right extremists made up the vast majority of the cases in this tier at nearly 80 percent. More than half of the cases in Tier 6 involved illegal guns.

In 2018, a group of Illinois militia members were arrested after an attempted bombing at a mosque. The men, who had allegedly previously attempted to firebomb an abortion clinic,¹ were in possession of four shotguns and four rifles, some of which were automatic, despite the fact that at least one was a convicted felon and thus legally prohibited from possessing firearms at all.²
Tier 7: Threatened or plotted gun violence while not possessing a gun

The cases in Tier 7 are those in which an extremist threatened or plotted gun violence but for which there is no evidence they actually possessed a gun. While the far right still makes up the majority of this tier, it is the only one in which the far right represents less than 65 percent: the number of far-right extremists in the tier is nearly equal to the number of Islamist extremists. Two-thirds of these cases involved people who were legally prohibited from possessing a firearm, suggesting that despite the fact that these individuals threatened or plotted to carry out gun violence, they were discouraged or hindered from carrying out these intentions due to laws that prohibited them from possessing guns. Despite this fact, there are cases in this tier that seem to have come close to disaster. The day after the 2019 shooting by a white supremacist at an El Paso Walmart, a Florida white supremacist who had previously posted photos of himself with guns online allegedly wrote that there were “3 more days of probation left then I get my AR-15 back. Don’t go to Walmart next week.”¹

Tier 8: Alleged Illegal Possession or Sale of a Firearm By an Extremist

Tier 8: Illegally possessed or sold a firearm

Nearly one-third of all the cases in the data have been categorized as Tier 8: illegal possession or sale of a firearm by an extremist. Again, more than 90 percent of the extremists in this category were on the far right.

Many of the cases in this category underscore the ways in which lax gun laws and loopholes in the law allow extremists to arm themselves. Sixty percent of the extremists in this category were prohibited from possessing a gun. In one such case, a self-described member of an anti-government militia group who was legally prohibited from possessing a firearm due to a previous felony conviction¹ was arrested with ten firearms, including handguns, rifles, and shotguns.² The extremist admitted that he had purchased the firearms in private sales, highlighting the problematic fact that federal law does not require a background check for all gun sales. As prosecutors wrote in the sentencing memo in this case, “Private Sales don’t require a background check. […] There is no way to prevent a private seller from selling to a prohibited possessor.”³

Nearly a fifth of the cases involved a ghost gun. That included two brothers who built fully automatic rifles and sold them to a buyer who they believed was trafficking them to ISIS⁴ and a felon and member of white supremacist group who was arrested in possession of three homemade rifles and a homemade handgun.⁵

B. Recent Examples of Armed Extremist Attacks

The past few years have unfortunately provided several additional high-profile examples of extremist violence, or plans for violence, in the United States. Many of those who planned or carried out attacks chose guns as their tools of violence, and some expressed beliefs in dangerous conspiracy theories pushed by the gun lobby.

a. Buffalo Mass Shooting (2022)

On May 14, 2022, a gunman used an assault weapon to open fire at the Tops Friendly Market in Buffalo, New York, killing 10 people and wounding three others. All 10 of those killed were Black, with the gunman specifically targeting a predominantly Black community. This mass shooting was an act of white supremacist, hate-motivated violence.

The Buffalo shooter expressed racist and accelerationist⁸¹ views in various writings. The shooter’s path to radicalization began with his fascination with firearms, particularly on /k/, the 4chan board dedicated to weapons. Everytown explored the shooter’s radicalization in depth in the report “Armed Extremism in Buffalo: Online Gun Communities Provide a Path of Radicalization and Training to a Racist Shooter.” As previously mentioned in this report, the shooter expressly stated that he chose firearms to carry out his attack because “[t]here are very few weapons that are easier to use, accessible, and effective at killing than firearms.” In his writings, the shooter regurgitated some of the most prevalent gun lobby propaganda, including referencing conspiracy theories about the supposedly looming mass civilian disarmament by political elites for the purpose of installing a tyrannical government. When gun extremism fused with his growing white supremacist beliefs, the Buffalo shooter decided to commit mass murder, targeting the Black community in Buffalo.

b. Allen, Texas Mass Shooting (2023)

On May 6, 2023, a man with longstanding neo-Nazi views killed eight people with an AR-15 assault rifle at an outlet mall in Allen, Texas. The shooter wore a patch emblazoned with “RWDS,” an acronym for “Right-Wing Death Squad,” a logo shared or worn by white supremacists and other far-right extremists.⁸²

The Allen shooter’s digital footprint leaves no doubt that he harbored hateful racist views.⁸³ This includes, but is not limited to, citations to a neo-Nazi website, hand-drawn SS lightning bolts and swastikas, and pictures that appear to show the shooter tattooed with a swastika.⁸⁴ The same digital footprint includes deeply misogynistic content as well.

In addition, the Allen shooter’s writings parrot some of the most infamous rhetoric from the American gun rights movement, including ending one post with the signoff “Molon Labe,” a popular ancient Greek pro-gun slogan roughly translating to “come and take [them],” implying violent resistance to hypothetical gun laws passed democratically. He also shared an article regurgitating the false gun lobby myth that “Democrat leaders support gun confiscation”—a mainstay of NRA messaging for decades.

An analysis of the Allen shooter’s social media history includes a post quoting from an article about the AR-15’s involvement in mass shootings, including that the AR-15 is “the obvious choice for any task that involves killing people at short to medium range.” Indeed, the writings indicate a fascination with mass shootings. For example, he praised the mass shooting at Covenant School in Tennessee, comparing it favorably to the 2014 mass shooting in Isla Vista, California. Like many mass shooters in recent years, the Allen shooter possessed an interest in and admiration for the mass shooter in Christchurch, New Zealand.

c. The Potential for Rising Antisemitism and Islamaphobia to Lead to Hate-Fueled Gun Violence in the U.S.

The crisis in the Middle East appears to have resulted in a rise in both antisemitic and Islamophobic incidents in the United States.⁸⁵ Whether this rise in hate-fueled incidents will result in a corresponding uptick in incidents involving guns remains to be seen, but a November 2023 shooting of three Palestinian students in Vermont provides reason for concern. According to reports, two of the victims were wearing Palestinian keffiyehs while walking near the University of Vermont when a white man armed with a handgun shot them.⁸⁶ Authorities indicated the shooting was being investigated as a potential hate crime.

As a recent federal arrest involving threats to the Jewish community highlights, antisemitism also continues to be a driver of extremist violence in America.

In June 2023, a man was arrested for allegedly planning a mass shooting at a synagogue in Michigan.⁸⁷ The criminal complaint⁸⁸ alleges the defendant expressed antisemitic beliefs, admiration for previous extremist mass shooters, and intent to carry out his own mass shooting. After his arrest, investigators found a note on his phone listing a synagogue located in East Lansing, Michigan, a date, and various firearms and weapons, including a firearm converted to be fully automatic.⁸⁹ In other messages, the defendant discussed his many firearms, which ones he planned to use in his attack, and other violent tactics.⁹⁰

d. January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol (2021)

One extreme viewpoint at the forefront of the NRA’s messaging for decades is the insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment. In 1994, then-NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre summed up the theory when he wrote that the Second Amendment “state[s] in plain language that the people have the right, must have the right, to take whatever measures necessary, including force, to abolish oppressive government.”⁹¹ LaPierre put it more plainly years later,⁹² in 2009: “Our Founding Fathers understood that the guys with the guns make the rules.”

This claim about the meaning of the Second Amendment, dragged into mainstream political discourse by the NRA,⁹³ is a corrosive perversion of America’s founding ideals that casts aside democratic consensus and rule of law in favor of rule through fear. Its justification of violence against political opponents, especially when combined with conspiracy theories that claim that those with modestly differing political opinions are in fact tyrants-in-waiting, is a key component in the justification of political violence. There are few instances which more clearly serve as a warning for the violence that can result from this combined mindset of grievance and entitlement than the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. Indeed, just days after the insurrection, then-NRA Board President Carolyn Meadows reiterated the organization’s embrace of the insurrectionist theory, writing in a column entitled “Why They Fear Us,” that “gun-control advocates want control, but are often stopped because the Second Amendment fundamentally undermines their attempt to turn people into submissive subjects of a controlling state.”⁹⁴

The day started with a rally outside the White House calling for the results of the U.S. presidential election to be overturned. The former president, several allies, and members of his family spoke. Many attendees of the rally then marched to the Capitol where the angry mob quickly became impossible to control.

Protesters seen all over Capitol building where pro-Trump supporters riot and breached the Capitol in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021. Rioters broke windows and breached the Capitol building in an attempt to overthrow the results of the 2020 election. Police used buttons and tear gas grenades to eventually disperse the crowd. Rioters used metal bars and tear gas as well against the police.

The insurrection caused the evacuation and lockdown of the U.S. Capitol. Five people, including an officer from the U.S. Capitol Police, died,⁹⁵ and well over 100 members of law enforcement sustained injuries⁹⁶—officers were trampled, struck with a bat, pinned against a statue, hit with a fire extinguisher, sprayed with bear spray, and pushed down stairs, among several other violent acts.⁹⁷

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol succinctly concluded: “Far-right extremists brought guns into Washington or the surrounding area.”

Almost immediately, it became clear that some insurrectionists had arrived in Washington, D.C., or even the Capitol complex, armed. A number were arrested before, during, and after the insurrection on weapons charges.

The Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol succinctly concluded: “Far-right extremists brought guns into Washington or the surrounding area.”⁹⁸ These armed insurrectionists included multiple people carrying firearms on Capitol grounds during the melees with police, a man who traveled to D.C. with a cache of guns and ammunition and subsequently texted about “putting a bullet” in Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s head,⁹⁹ and a man arrested with a 110-round drum magazine.¹⁰⁰ Members of the Oath Keepers—now convicted of seditious conspiracy—stored guns at a hotel across the Potomac River for what they called a “Quick Reaction Force” to storm the city,¹⁰¹ and multiple members of the Three Percenter militia movement—now convicted or charged with conspiracy—discussed plans to bring multiple firearms to D.C. in the days before the insurrection.¹⁰²

Everytown was able to identify at least 12 individuals allegedly tied to the events of January 6 who were arrested in Washington, D.C., and charged with firearms offenses. A review of the police reports related to the insurrectionists showed that police seized at least 3,071 rounds of live ammunition during the course of these arrests¹⁰³—enough ammunition to shoot every member of the House and Senate five times. As one Capitol police officer testified, the number of firearms seized could have been far higher if the authorities had the manpower to detain and search all of the insurrectionists on the way out of the Capitol.¹⁰⁴

Still others invoked guns as the solution to what they saw as the existential threat from a Biden presidency, encouraging others to show up armed.¹⁰⁵ Posts online from users discussing plans to bring guns to the Capitol were so plentiful that the Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Police Department posted signs warning that firearms were legally prohibited on the National Mall.¹⁰⁶ Even after the fact, insurrectionists bemoaned the fact that more hadn’t been carrying guns¹⁰⁷ and ominously promised to return with them.¹⁰⁸

The insurrectionists at the Capitol were armed, organized, and violent. Apart from the physical presence of guns, the strong ties of several of the insurrectionists to gun extremism is hardly surprising—guns are a recruiting and motivating tool for the extreme right. Conspiracy theories about election rigging and the “stolen” election, driven by a deep state of shadowy government actors, echoed the same imaginary threats the gun lobby has parroted for years to motivate gun rights absolutism around the supposed looming confiscation of guns by the government.

C. Armed Demonstrations Continue to Pose a Threat to American Democracy

In August 2021, Everytown and the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) released a first-of-its-kind report examining the rise of armed demonstrations since 2020: events at which demonstrators, counter-demonstrators, or other individuals or groups were present and carried or brandished firearms. Given the remaining threat posed by armed demonstrations, this monitoring has continued to the present day and now encompasses some 52 months of data.

Throughout 2020, images and accounts of armed people, often in tactical gear, flooded the public consciousness. Armed individuals showed up at demonstrations against pandemic-related public health restrictions. As demonstrations for racial justice spread nationwide in the wake of the murder of George Floyd, armed counter-demonstrators, often motivated by far-right conspiracy theories, appeared at public events, adding a potentially deadly element to the events. The largest spike in armed demonstrations in the past four years coincided with the backlash to racial justice demonstrations: there was an average of more than five armed demonstrations every day in June 2020.

Later in 2020, the claims by then-President Trump and his allies of a stolen election led to dozens of armed “Stop the Steal” demonstrations. These events were especially alarming in light of the fact that two-thirds of “Stop the Steal” demonstrations took place at government buildings, including locations where votes were being tabulated. The frequency of these demonstrations dropped significantly after the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Thankfully, the number of armed demonstrations, both in terms of raw numbers and as a proportion of all demonstrations, has remained relatively low since 2021. Between January 2020 and April 2024, there were more than 60,000 public demonstrations in the U.S. Of those, at least 778 demonstrations included the presence of an armed individual, other than law enforcement.

Percentage of All Demonstrations That Were Armed

However, there is still cause for concern. For one, while armed demonstrations represent a small proportion of the total number of events, armed demonstrations are seven times more likely to be violent or destructive than unarmed demonstrations. While armed demonstrations account for less than 2% of the total number of demonstrations in the US, they account for more than 10% of all violent or destructive demonstrations.

That trend is mirrored in which events turned deadly. The 778 armed demonstrations since 2020 have resulted in more fatalities than all of the fatalities at the nearly 60,000 other demonstrations in that same time combined.

Second, even when no shots are fired, the presence of armed demonstrators is in and of itself a show of violent intimidation which can chill free speech and expression. Research has shown that Americans are less likely to attend demonstrations to exercise their free speech rights if they knew civilians at the event were armed.¹⁰⁹ One poll found that 60 percent of Black and White Americans said they would be “very unlikely” to attend such a demonstration.¹¹⁰

Third, while there has been a relative decline in the number of armed demonstrations since the highs in 2020, the circumstances and conditions which both enabled and caused those increases in armed civilians at demonstrations persist in 2024.

Most notably, lax firearms laws still make it far too easy for extremists, including those with criminal histories, to arm themselves and show up in public spaces carrying firearms. For example, most states have not yet regulated the open carry of firearms,¹¹¹ leaving extremists able to legally appear at events openly carrying firearms.

Repeatedly since 2020, spikes in armed demonstrations were accompanied by the adoption and advancement by right-wing leaders of the narratives motivating the demonstrations.

In addition, American political leaders are still leveraging extremist narratives and conspiracy theories in an effort to secure their power. In doing so, they lend legitimacy to extremist movements, pushing those that have already been radicalized closer to violence.¹¹² Repeatedly since 2020, spikes in armed demonstrations were accompanied by the adoption and advancement by right-wing leaders of the narratives motivating the demonstrations.

For example, the 2020 Stop the Steal movement that led to violent armed demonstrations, including the January 6 insurrection, was the result of then-President Trump’s insistence on the false claim that he had won the presidential election. Former President Trump continues to make the same claims and deploy incendiary rhetoric in the face of criminal proceedings, raising the obvious potential that a violent movement could reignite.

Even in the case that old narratives and movements do not resurface to stoke armed demonstrations, recent months have shown the ways that novel extremist narratives could lead to a spike. As multiple studies have concluded, 2022 saw a marked increase in targeting and harassment of LGBTQ+ people by the far right, spurred on by dangerous rhetoric from right-wing leaders.¹¹³ This real-world activation is visible in a concerning rise in armed anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations starting in June of that year, coinciding with Pride month.¹¹⁴

In one instance in June 2022, a ‘Pride in the Park’ demonstration in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho, was confronted by multiple groups of counter-demonstrators, some of whom were armed.¹¹⁵ Members of the white supremacist group Patriot Front were arrested by police as they arrived on the scene before they could engage with any demonstrators.¹¹⁶ In a March 2023 incident, white supremacists, some of whom were armed, demonstrated against a drag show in Ohio. The extremists shouted “Heil Hitler” and racial slurs and multiple violent confrontations were reported.¹¹⁷

In the year between June 2021 and May 2022, anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations accounted for just 3 percent of all armed demonstrations. In the subsequent 12 months, from June 2022 through May 2023, anti-LGBTQ+ demonstrations accounted for nearly one-third of the total, making such activations the most common motivation for armed demonstrations during that period.

Anti-LGBT Demonstrations As Percentage of All Armed Demonstrations

Last updated: 5.3.2024

The degree to which such demonstrations became more common in conjunction with rising anti-LGBTQ+ rhetoric from right-wing leaders underscores the way that extremist rhetoric can spur real-world violent action, suggesting that extremists remain primed to respond to similarly motivating propaganda narratives by showing up armed in the real world. This raises the concerning possibility that right-wing leaders could deploy similarly motivating narratives in the future, which can sometimes form around a single event, leading to another spike in armed demonstrations.

IV. Conclusion

Given the current political environment, the threat of escalating far-right extremist violence in America is real. Political leaders continue to leverage the far-right propaganda and radicalizing conspiracy theories that animated political violence on January 6, 2021 to convince supporters that the stakes for those opposed to any and all gun regulations are even more dire and more existential.

While the majority of the country sees January 6 as a day where far-right demonstrators went too far, there is a portion of the country that believes the rioters on January 6 didn’t go far enough. One doesn’t need to travel to dark corners of the internet to find such sentiment—public polling confirms it, with one survey finding 14 percent of people believing “in the next few years, there will be civil war in the US”, and 19 percent of respondents believing “having a strong leader for America is more important than having a democracy.”¹¹⁸ The same survey found 5.5% of Americans surveyed believed political violence was justified “to return Donald Trump to the presidency”—a percentage that may seem low, but which indicates millions of Americans share this anti-democratic and violent belief set. This is a group whose propensity to violence can be supercharged by easy access to guns.

Meanwhile, the firearms industry has positioned itself to profit from the embrace of political and hate-motivated violence by a concerning number of Americans. The industry and its lobbying apparatus fights for laws that enable extremists to arm themselves while simultaneously doing all it can to ratchet up the fear and anger that motivates extremists. The industry then offers a single solution to those who believe the fear-mongering, a solution it just so happens to sell: firearms.

Guns are the weapons more frequently used by extremists in perpetrating violence, yet many policymakers, journalists, and academics create artificial silos in discussing extremism and guns. This is a missed opportunity, primarily because common sense gun policies, supported by the majority of the American public, could significantly reduce the threat of armed extremism in America. These policies include:

Implementing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO)

These laws, sometimes known as “red flag laws”, can be utilized to temporarily disarm individuals who may be a danger to themselves or others. If properly implemented and funded, these laws can be powerful tools in disarming violent extremists.
Banning Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

Some of the most infamous extremist mass shootings involved assault weapons and the use of high-capacity magazines. These weapons, which demonstrate the gun industry’s innovations toward even more dangerous products, provide would-be shooters with the ability to inflict maximum damage in carrying out an attack.
Stopping the Proliferation of “Ghost Guns”

A ghost gun is a do-it-yourself, homemade gun made from easy-to-get building blocks that can be purchased with no background checks. Due to their appeal to those that cannot pass a background check, ghost guns have become one of the fastest-growing gun safety problems in the U.S. Fortunately, in 2022, the federal government issued an administrative rule that addresses a large part of the ghost gun market, but work remains to be done on this issue.
Prohibit the Carrying of Firearms in and Around Sensitive Government Facilities

The carrying of firearms by members of the public intimidates citizens, emboldens extremists, and is ultimately the means by which a protest can morph into an insurrection or escalate into a gunfight. Federal law already prohibits firearms at the U.S. Capitol and on Capitol grounds. Federal and state lawmakers should extend the prohibition on gun carrying to all state capitols and their grounds, and the other buildings essential to the functioning of government and the electoral process, including polling locations and vote-counting facilities.
Prohibiting the Carrying of Firearms at Demonstrations on Public Property

Given the statistical finding that an armed demonstration is seven times more likely to result in violence or destruction, states and localities should take steps to prohibit guns at demonstrations.
Preventing Those Convicted of Hate Crimes from Purchasing Weapons

Hate crime misdemeanors can be serious, violent acts, but under federal law, a violent or threatening hate crime misdemeanor conviction does not prohibit gun possession. This means a person convicted of a violent hate crime could legally pass a background check.

Stronger gun safety laws will not end hate or extremism, but policy can be effective in making extremists less deadly. Such reforms face steep resistance from America’s gun lobby and gun industry. This is hardly surprising; armed extremism in America is enabled and amplified by extreme rhetoric and extreme policy positions of the gun lobby and gun industry.

Learn More:

Everytown Research & Policy is a program of Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund, an independent, non-partisan organization dedicated to understanding and reducing gun violence. Everytown Research & Policy works to do so by conducting methodologically rigorous research, supporting evidence-based policies, and communicating this knowledge to the American public.

Cookie	Duration	Description
cookielawinfo-checkbox-analytics	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Analytics".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-functional	11 months	The cookie is set by GDPR cookie consent to record the user consent for the cookies in the category "Functional".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-necessary	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookies is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Necessary".
cookielawinfo-checkbox-others	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Other.
cookielawinfo-checkbox-performance	11 months	This cookie is set by GDPR Cookie Consent plugin. The cookie is used to store the user consent for the cookies in the category "Performance".
viewed_cookie_policy	11 months	The cookie is set by the GDPR Cookie Consent plugin and is used to store whether or not user has consented to the use of cookies. It does not store any personal data.

I. The Persistent Threat From Armed Extremism

A. What Is Armed Extremism?

B. The Impact of Armed Extremism and Hate-Motivated Violence Is Felt Throughout Targeted Communities

II. The Gun Lobby and Gun Industry Fan the Flames of Extremist Ideology

A. Dangerous Rhetoric From Gun Lobby and Industry Risks Extremist Feedback Loop

B. The Firearm Industry and Lobby Not Only Assail the Enforcement of Gun Laws, Many Support Eliminating All Gun Laws Altogether

C. Questionable Gun Industry Marketing References to Extremism and Extremist Narratives/Symbols

III. Guns Are the Weapon of Choice for the Extreme Right

A. Number of Arrests of Extremists Who Used, Threatened To Use, or Had Ready Access to Firearms Underscores Threat in Recent Years

Tiers of Extremist Arrests Involving Guns by Date

Extremists Arrested In Cases Involving Guns by Ideology

Extremists Arrested by Sub-Ideology

Tiers of Extremists Arrested in Cases Involving Guns

Tiers 1–3: Alleged Crimes in Which a Gun Was Wielded By or Immediately Accessible to an Extremist

Tier 1: Fired a gun in the commission of a crime

Tier 2: Physically menaced others with a gun

Tier 3: Committed a crime with a gun on their person or in close proximity

Tier 4: Alleged Crimes Committed By Extremists Who Possessed Firearms That Were Not Immediately Accessible

Tier 4: Committed a crime while owning a firearm that was not in close proximity

Tiers 5–7: Alleged Crimes Which Involved Threats of Violence By Extremists

Tier 5: Threatened or plotted gun violence while possessing a gun

Tier 6: Threatened or plotted a type of violence that was unspecified or other than gun violence while possessing a gun

Tier 7: Threatened or plotted gun violence while not possessing a gun

Tier 8: Alleged Illegal Possession or Sale of a Firearm By an Extremist

Tier 8: Illegally possessed or sold a firearm

B. Recent Examples of Armed Extremist Attacks

a. Buffalo Mass Shooting (2022)

b. Allen, Texas Mass Shooting (2023)

c. The Potential for Rising Antisemitism and Islamaphobia to Lead to Hate-Fueled Gun Violence in the U.S.

d. January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol (2021)

C. Armed Demonstrations Continue to Pose a Threat to American Democracy

Percentage of All Demonstrations That Were Armed

Anti-LGBT Demonstrations As Percentage of All Armed Demonstrations

IV. Conclusion

Implementing Extreme Risk Protection Orders (ERPO)

Banning Assault Weapons and High-Capacity Magazines

Stopping the Proliferation of “Ghost Guns”

Prohibit the Carrying of Firearms in and Around Sensitive Government Facilities

Prohibiting the Carrying of Firearms at Demonstrations on Public Property

Preventing Those Convicted of Hate Crimes from Purchasing Weapons

Learn More:

The Latest

Michigan Firearms Trafficking and Crime Gun Fact Sheet

Wisconsin Firearms Trafficking and Crime Gun Fact Sheet

New Mexico Firearms Trafficking and Crime Gun Fact Sheet

Appendix 3: Methodology to Calculate Annual Revenue of Trafficked Crime Guns