GUN violence killed 34,000 people in America in 2014, the most recent year for which data is available. That is about the same number of people who died in traffic accidents. But firearms are considerably less regulated than vehicles, thanks largely to a powerful political machine that in recent years has rolled back some of the few limits to gun ownership. It is surprising, therefore, that while the industry may have political might, the economics point to a diminutive industry dealing predominantly with a niche consumer group.

While domestic production has increased from 4.2m firearms in 2008 to 8.9m in 2015, the firearms industry remains relatively small. The National Shooting Sports Foundation, an industry group, produces an economic impact report that claims arms and ammunition production and sales support 141,500 jobs. That is less than 0.1% of total employment in America, fewer than the number of people who work in wholesale bakeries and tortilla manufacturing, and about the same as the number employed in gift, novelty and souvenir shops. A small number of companies monopolise the market. Victoria Smith of Boston University and colleagues, examining the industry in a 2017 paper for the American Journal of Preventative Medicine, found that more than half of the 4.4m handguns manufactured for domestic use in 2015 were manufactured by two companies: Sturm Ruger and Smith & Wesson. Half of the 3.7m rifles manufactured for domestic use were produced by three firms: Remington, Sturm Ruger, and Savage Arms. This is not an industry made up of the large number of small businesses that is typically associated with political clout.

Gun ownership is also concentrated: most American consumers have little or no contact with the firearms business. A national firearms survey carried out by Deborah Azreal, a Harvard scientist and her colleagues in 2015 suggested that 14% of gun owners own 50% of guns. Given that between a fifth and a third of adults own a gun, that translates into about 3% or 4% of American adults owning half of America’s stock of about 272m guns.

It is true that surveys suggest that gun ownership is concentrated in a high-voting demographic: 34% of gun owners are aged over 60 according to Ms Azreal’s data, 81% are white and 72% are men. And industry-backed groups commit significant resources to ensure gun owners’ voices are heard in the halls of Congress. It will be well attuned to listen given that members have an average age of 59 years, 81% are white and a similar percentage male. The Center for Responsive Politics estimates that the National Rifle Association (NRA) spent $59m on contributions, lobbying and (mainly) outside spending in 2016. That is much more than was spent by gun control advocates and outsized given the scale of the industry. This financing is still a drop in the bucket of overall campaign finance: spending tied to influencing the federal elections in 2016 totaled $6.4bn, more than one hundred times the NRA’s contribution.

It is therefore surprising that this niche industry and its most enthusiastic consumers have been so successful in blocking popular responses to the epidemic of gun deaths. Ms Azreal’s survey suggested that only 22% of gun owners who reported buying a firearm within the last two years did so without a background check, and gun owners as a group support making that process universal. Pew research suggests 77% of gun owners (alongside 87% of non-owners) want mandatory background checks for private gun sales and at gun shows. More than half of gun-owners (along with four fifths of non-owners) want a federal database to track gun sales. And yet there is no sign of movement on Capitol Hill towards even these elements of gun reform. The line coined by Margaret Mead, a cultural anthropologist, that a small group of committed citizens is the only thing that changes the world is all too applicable to America’s gun epidemic.