You're assuming that there is a gun culture in the US. I don't believe there is one, as the term is generally used. Are there a lot of guns in America? Yes. Are they routinely pulled out to settle disputes? No.
What you call contributing factors I call the cause of the pointless violence that occurs--few or no treatment options for the mentally unstable, rampant drug use, and basic human stupidity.
It may be in what you define as a gun "culture". Our definitions may be very different but for me that so many people believe that it is necessary to have a gun or they are putting their and their family's lives in danger without having any other reason for having them, e.g. those whose work or daily lives expose them to that kind of danger, living in a neighborhood where gun violence is a proven fact, is what I define as a gun culture rather than a reality. That there is the proliferation of guns in this country that are owned for reasons other than immediate threat of danger is a gun culture. I don't care if they're pulled out or not, just that so many people don't think twice about there being something wrong with that and accepting it as a way of life--what's the big deal?, is a gun culture.
I've said before and will say again that I have absolutely no problems with the other issues being dealt with and MAYBE this will be a catalyst for finally doing it but I'm not overly optimistic in the don't spend any money on "those" people atmosphere we currently have. But you can't have it both ways--point the finger at the other issues and say those are the things that need to be fixed without addressing that as part of that we need to make sure that guns are not as easy to obtain as they currently are--both illegally and legally.
There is not one thing in this world wrong with owning guns. There is nothing wrong with shooting guns. The number of guns in this country is not a problem.
I think that people are, as they are wont to do, looking for an easy solution to very complex societal ( ) problems. Latching onto firearms as some sort of bogeyman won't fix anything--crazy people will still be crazy, evil people will still be evil, criminals will still be criminals.
Without guns, will the bodycount be lower when the crazies, the evil, and the criminals decide to hurt someone? I don't know--McVeigh blew up a federal building, Klebold and Harris brought bombs into Columbine High School, and Kehoe blew up a school. Who can say?
It's all academic, anyway--guns and the second amendment are here to stay.
There seems to be an anti gun culture as well in that there are some that see no value in recreational shooting or collecting and automatically assume that anyone who owns a gun is putting their and their families life in danger without considering that they may be trained, mentally stable, no history of domestic violence or association with criminal element and practice secure storage.
You just can't discount all other aspects that influence the number of gun related injuries and focus only on their mere presence.
Sure, you can say that people with a gun in their house are X number of times more likely to be injured by a gun than those who don't, but you can also say that peanut butter is dangerous because peanut butter eaters are more likely to die than non peanut butter eaters but that is only because a portion of the population will have an allergic reaction to peanut butter.
For those without other risk factors the danger is not there.
It shouldn't be difficult for the law abiding to get a gun. It should be impossible for criminals or the unstable to get one.
I guess some people think the former is impossible with the latter.
However, I think that many who are part of the anti-gun culture are so derisive and hateful to law abiding gun owners, they don't make any distinction.