Vox has a steaming hot take just in time for Saturday’s #MarchForOurLives gun control rallies; assistant professor of sociology at the University of Arizona Jennifer Carlson argues that the gun debate ought to center around men and what has inspired them to carry.

Vox’s tweet is a grossly oversimplified take on the piece as a whole, but it’s not so far off. Carlson says she conducted research on gun carriers in Michigan and found that “the loss of manufacturing signaled not just a loss of jobs but also a loss of meaning, relevance, and dignity attached to these jobs.”

She adds, “Guns may be a poor substitute, but they will remain appealing as long as these deeper structures — and the demands they place on men — remain unaddressed.”

So, what are these deeper structures?

Gun carry culture helped men from diverse backgrounds imagine themselves as protectors, counteracting gender vertigo. In metro Detroit, I learned there was some truth to the claim that gun carriers were indeed “clinging” to their guns — but not out of fearful ignorance (as Obama’s “clinging to their guns” quip implied) but because their carried guns said something important about who they were and what they wanted to become.

Neither aggressive criminals (the “wolves” in gun culture parlance) nor meek victims (the “sheep”), gun carriers see themselves as valiantly straddling a moral space of heroic violence. They are sheepdogs. This citizen-protector ethic redefines men’s social utility to their families.

With guns, men both rework their personal codes about what it means to be a good man and transform lethal force from a taboo act of violence to an act of good citizenship.

But … how does this address women?

In case you missed them, here are Tomi Lahren’s gun yoga pants: