ONE of the things Europeans find incomprehensible about America is its love of guns. There are two reasons they don't get it. One is that Europeans live in a much more urbanised, regulated and crowded part of the world. More importantly the concept of owning a gun as an essential civil liberty is entirely absent. There is no second amendment guaranteeing the right to bear arms, and there is little sense that it is up to the individual to defend one's family and property. The organisation most associated with America's culture of guns is the National Rifle Association (NRA). The NRA's lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action, and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC)—which drafts model legislation—have been enormously successful at pushing pro-gun laws in state legislatures. These days the debate is no longer whether assault rifles ought to be banned, but whether they should be allowed in bars, churches and schools. One group, Students for Concealed Carry, even argues that carrying concealed weapons on university campuses would be an effective means of self defence. On the face of things, then, the NRA is a wealthy and powerful organisation. At a recent event, one speaker boasted about the political pain the organisation caused Bill Clinton during his presidency. More recently, according to OpenSecrets.org, it spent $7.2m during the 2010 election cycle. Its influence can also be seen in the way politicians respond to its demands. For example, at the height of its powers in the 1990s it succeeded in quashing research into gun-related injuries and deaths by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But Paul Waldman, of the American Prospect, has recently argued that the NRA's dominance is a myth. He has looked closely at the figures and writes, “Despite what the NRA has long claimed, it neither delivered Congress to the Republican party in 1994 nor delivered the White House to George W. Bush in 2000.” He also argues that NRA money has no impact on congressional elections, as it spreads its money over so many races, and that NRA endorsements are “almost meaningless” as most go to incumbent Republicans with little chance of losing.

One also has to wonder if the organisation has a winning strategy for the future. Although the number of firearms in the country continues to rise, most of these sales are to repeat customers. Over the last three decades the number of households with guns has steadily declined. Changing demographics are blamed. For one, America has become more urban (gun ownership is less common in cities). White males, the gun-loving sector of American society, also make up an increasingly smaller percentage of the population. What the industry actually needs is more Latino, black and female gun enthusiasts. But the NRA isn't delivering these.

The people who turn up to NRA conventions, like the one held this week in St Louis, remain older white men. At this year's event, the main sign of women in the hall were the skimpily clad girls advertising guns. The NRA's magazines feature ads for leaf mulchers and Viagra, but not apparently the "sexy, fast and practical" bra gun holster.

More cause for concern came on April 17th, when the American Legislative Exchange Council ended its task force responsible for promoting pro-gun legislation. This followed the controversy over ALEC's ties to "stand your ground" laws around the country. ALEC will now focus its efforts on jobs, free markets and growth, but not firearms.

All of these developments suggest an attenuated NRA. The organisation has had its political power called into question, lost an ally in promoting gun laws, and caters to an ageing demographic, on top of pushing a potentially dangerous product that is of less interest to American households. Time will tell, but it seems reasonable to wonder whether the NRA has as much firepower as it claims.

(Photo credit: AFP)