The disturbing finding from the Bartholow et al. (2005) study was this:
"Experiment 2 revealed that pictures of hunting guns were more likely to prime aggressive thoughts among nonhunters, whereas pictures of assault guns were more likely to prime aggressive thoughts among hunters."
It is a complex study to be sure, but I think you fundamentally misunderstand behavioral science research when you arbitrarily discount the results based on a semantic interpretation of the word "implications" from the study title.
These are substantive differences in a methodologically sound study. The "hunters" group included both hunters and target shooters and the "non-hunters" group only people who had no prior experience with firearms.
The non-hunters primed for aggressive thoughts just by viewing a picture of a hunting type firearm (shotgun or bolt action rifle). In other words, what we on TFL would generally find an innocuous firearm spurred the naive, non gun experienced person to aggressive thinking. Or, they associate innocuous firearms with aggression.
Not so for the hunter group (remember, both hunters and target shooters). However, they clearly associated an EBR with aggression.
The net of it is that even people experienced in firearms use/ownership have a proclivity to associate EBRs with aggression, and the naive, non-hunter group is similarly triggered even by weapons whose primary purpose is sporting.
In terms of winning hearts and minds in this debate, we should not assume that just because someone hunts or target shoots, and generally supports RKBA, that they will also stand against proposals out of the Biden project.
I think that on this list we suffer too much from an insular view of the world around us. We are a minority and we are about to face the tyranny of a majority in a democratic process.
"I'm your huckleberry."