In Mr. Kundu’s case, the conflict is that he enjoys competitive shooting even as he perceives danger in what he describes as a local arms race that he feels powerless to escape.

Out of “common sense,” he said, he needs to be as armed as his neighbors, some of whom he describes as troublemakers with assault rifles. “It is so discouraging, so paranoia-inducing,” he said. “It makes one feel as though you’ve got to be continually vigilant and defensive instead of living your life free.”

Other gun owners interviewed for this article expressed similar reservations, citing their enjoyment of hunting or of introducing family members to the sport while expressing support for stricter gun control legislation. Mr. Kundu, for instance, supports a ban on the kind of assault weapon that he owns, a rifle manufactured by Panther Arms.

It is these voices of ambivalence that policy makers say are likely to be drowned out by the passion at the extreme ends.

“Their views don’t get represented in the debate, and it’s one of the consequences of the polarized nature of our politics,” said Patrick J. Egan, an assistant professor of politics and public policy at New York University. “If all sides had more of an incentive to moderate their arguments in a way that would be appealing to people like this, you could imagine it being a more constructive conversation than it currently is.”