Yes, it's true. But it's maybe a bit more complex.

First, we do know that a lot of people owned guns in colonial America. Just the large number of gunsmiths who were at work in the period are evidence for it. But thanks to a controversial book by Michael A. Bellesile some years ago that tried to show otherwise, a survey of probate inventories was done that pretty much settled the matter.

Most all of these pieces were for hunting. Fowlers in New England and the coast, rifles in the western areas, mountains. Militia muskets existed, but not many- Washington complained bitterly about how few militiamen arrived armed with them, in 1775. Not many pistols, either. It could be expected that few people would have a gun collection: things were expensive in this pre-industrial world, and a decent rifle might take half the 30 pounds a journeyman craftsman earned in a year. So , it's not surprising that most of these people would choose the one gun that would be the most useful, and for most, muskets and pistols would not be.

The colonies were very rural, most of the sparse population were farmers. Those farmers initially went for the good arable land, like river valleys. The rocky hills were left uncleared, and those were good game habitat. And, cash crops were good game feed, as well, so it is to be expected that hunting would be practical. Yes, there would be a contrast here with Europe, where the land had long since been divided up and the population much denser. Someone who wanted to hunt in England did not necessarily have to own gameland, but they would have to make arrangements with someone who did. Not necessarily a monarch, but more likely to be someone important. There was also early on in England an elite aspect to gun ownership, even laws that discouraged anyone who was not a person of substantial means from owning one.

So, a lot of this could be summarized as: there were a lot of guns because farmers liked to have guns. However, there's also definitely evidence of a culture of violence on the frontier. On Aug.14, 1789, Jean Hamtramck was in command of a fort in Vincennes, now Indiana- the furthest US outpost . A party of 220 armed men from Kentucky appeared, on their way to raid a Native nation. Hamtramck knew that would only cause reprisals, but half of Hamtramck's little garrison of about 90 were sick so he could do nothing to stop them. The Kentuckians killed a dozen Native Americans in their raid, and eighty of the Wea nation then asked to be put under Hamtramck's protection. We only know of the incident because of Hamtramck's report, but there must have been many similar ones that were unreported.

There's also the curious Golden Age of the Kentucky Rifle. From about 1782-1820, American gunsmiths seemed to have been impelled to produce fine pieces. Not that they couldn't do ornamented work before, but most pre-Revolutionary War guns are pretty plain, especially by 18th c. standards. After the Revolutionary War, makers like Nicholas Beyer and Isaac Haines suddenly had lots of customers who wanted something fancy. Like a Claro walnut stock and rust-blued barrels now, it indicates that for a lot of people a gun had become more than just a tool to be used around the farm.

Brown, M. L. (1980). Firearms in Colonial America: The Impact on History and Technology 1492–1792 (First Edition). Smithsonian.

Gill, H. B. (1974). The Gunsmith in Colonial Virginia (Williamsburg research studies). Colonial Williamsburg Publications.

Schwoerer, L. G. (2016). Gun Culture in Early Modern England (1st Edition). University of Virginia Press.