this post was submitted on 09 May 2024
616 points (94.0% liked)

News

23641 readers
3588 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences reveals that across all political and social groups in the United States, there is a strong preference against living near AR-15 rifle owners and neighbors who store guns outside of locked safes. This surprising consensus suggests that when it comes to immediate living environments, Americans’ views on gun control may be less divided than the polarized national debate suggests.

The research was conducted against a backdrop of increasing gun violence and polarization on gun policy in the United States. The United States has over 350 million civilian firearms and gun-related incidents, including accidents and mass shootings, have become a leading cause of death in the country. Despite political divides, the new study aimed to explore whether there’s common ground among Americans in their immediate living environments, focusing on neighborhood preferences related to gun ownership and storage.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 103 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This is why I use the AR-10, it's much safer, it's 5 AR's fewer than the AR-15

[–] ForgotAboutDre 29 points 7 months ago (4 children)

The bigger bullet means it's easier to avoid.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

So a good bit cheaper, too, then?

[–] Dkarma 19 points 7 months ago (3 children)
load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] jordanlund 81 points 7 months ago (9 children)

I'd be more concerned about a neighbor wearing a MAGA hat and flying a Trump 2024 flag than someone quietly owning an AR-15.

But that's because I'm aware of the statistics.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/

"Handguns are the most common weapon type used in mass shootings in the United States, with a total of 166 different handguns being used in 116 incidents between 1982 and December 2023. These figures are calculated from a total of 149 reported cases over this period, meaning handguns are involved in about 78 percent of mass shootings."

[–] barsquid 21 points 7 months ago

If they have a MAGA hat and flag you have to be careful about approaching their driveway or front door. They are fear-addicted and armed.

[–] [email protected] 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Thanks for backing up my position with the actual statistics. I'm aware of them too but I was too lazy to dig them up. Thanks.

People should be way more concerned about handguns but mass shootings with rifles get all the attention.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] [email protected] 65 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (15 children)

the gun ownership attribute had three levels: no gun ownership, owning a pistol, and owning an AR-15,

This study design is bad, and they should feel bad. If they're going to claim that people are afraid of AR-15s, they should compare it apples-to-apples with other rifles, or just ask about rifles generally, like they did with pistols.

Furthermore, any study asking opinion questions for what should be data-driven decisions are misleading at best and harmful at worst. If your concern is safety in communities, you should study actual safety, not feelings. It appears they want to make people feel safe, while not necessarily increasing safety.

[–] [email protected] 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)
[–] bhmnscmm 9 points 7 months ago (7 children)

Fair enough for a general survey question. However, the point about how policy decisions shouldn't be based on opinion/anecdote is still valid (at least in the case of gun control).

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] dogslayeggs 12 points 7 months ago

Yes, people want to feel safe. Emotional health is an important part of quality of life.

And this isn't a data-driven decision. This is a study on how people feel about an issue. Nobody is making a decision based on this, outside of politicians understanding the best way to speak in public when campaigning. Why are you so upset that someone studies how people feel? Yes, the study could have been more in-depth and asked about different types of rifles, but then someone would complain that they didn't include X gun or Y rifle, or they would complain that they lumped all rifles together, or complain about the lumping of "assault rifles," or complain that shotguns aren't included.

It's like turning right on red. It has been proven to be safer by tons of data-driven studies. But people fucking hate it when you are used to being able to turn and go about your drive when there is no traffic around.

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] Diplomjodler3 59 points 7 months ago (5 children)

As a matter of fact, most progressive policies have majority support in the US. The system is deliberately designed to prevent the will of the majority from being enacted.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 7 months ago (17 children)

That's a feature, not a bug. The point is you want to protect rights fro the tyranny of the majority.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The point is you want to protect rights fro the tyranny of the majority.

Eh, that may have been the excuse for the separation of powers into a Republic, but that's not what gave rural southern states an advantage of their more populated neighbors in the north.

That was the great compromise in 1787, which led to the 3/5th compromise. They didn't fear the "tyranny of the majority" as much as they didn't want to join a union that could potentially outlaw slavery.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[–] kerrigan778 48 points 7 months ago (3 children)

If your suburban/urban neighbor knows what model of gun you have and you aren't hunting/shooting buddies then you're doing something horribly wrong and are definitely a scary neighbor regardless of what type of gun it is.

[–] BeMoreCareful 9 points 7 months ago (2 children)

Taking the shotty for a walk.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 37 points 7 months ago (6 children)

Normally pretty much an anarchist in my policy predilections. But there are folks I went to school with that I wouldn't trust with a power drill, much less a rifle. Seems they're just the ones that make the biggest deal over having guns -and least likely to use them in any responsible way. The role these sorts of badass-looking firearms play now is to make powerless Americans feel like they have some agency. Likely dangerous when these misinformed, utterly propagandized serfs feel extra pressed and attribute their low quality of life to all the wrong reasons/people.

load more comments (6 replies)
[–] dual_sport_dork 32 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (24 children)

The aversion to AR-15 owners was stronger than the aversion to owners of other types of firearms (pistols). When given a choice, the probability that a respondent would prefer to live near someone who owned an AR-15 plummeted by over 20 percentage points, indicating a strong societal preference against this type of gun ownership.

Which, as usual, goes a long way towards illustrating how effective propaganda and manipulation of people's opinions can be. Not just on this specific topic either, but in this case I guess that's what we're talking about. Despite its scientific dressings, what this study is exploring isn't actually any mechanical factor, it is measuring people's perceptions which are not guaranteed to be reflected by reality. (And again, this is true of many other topics as well...)

The AR-15 platform does the same damn thing and shoots the same damn bullet in the same damn way as numerous other firearms, and yet just the name itself has a bad rap from being incessantly repeated in the news and social media.

Here's this old chestnut. It's still true.

Why's the one on top "scarier?"

Tl;dr: Own, store, and handle your gun responsibly. Don't be a paranoid loon. Don't believe in whatever boogeyman Fox News is pushing this week. Don't hyperventilate about fictional distinctions.

[–] wjrii 28 points 7 months ago (17 children)

Partly because the AR-15 is lighter than the Mini 14, is easier to reload, and is generally designed to meet the modern needs of armies killin' humans better. Then there's the incessant marketing, the huge number of manufacturers at multiple price points (the Mini 14 being a Ruger exclusive), the aftermarket of optics and tacticool accessories, and the general cultural impact. How many Mini 14s have actually been involved in mass shootings and gun-nerd intimidation exercises? It's almost like the least stable assholes are interested in a "badass" gun.

But okay, fine. There's a not-insignificant amount of truth to the graphic. By all means, the gun nerds should put it everywhere and inform the previously ignorant public. I don't think the result will be to convince people the AR-15 is actually useful, just that the Mini-14 is equally unnecessary as a civilian tool or hunting rifle, and they shouldn't assume a wooden-stock rifle is inherently less dangerous than a plastic one.

And, for the record, I am tediously, annoyingly aware of current second-amendment jurisprudence and the lack of sufficient political will to change the constitution, and while I don't think the former is well considered, the situation is what it is. It just sucks. It leaves America unique among stable democracies in having gun violence anywhere near the top of the list of causes of death.

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 24 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (13 children)

Your image is confusing. How does a the rifle with no magazine have the same capacity to rapid fire as the one above it? The Ar-15 appears to have more bullets immediately available, which would mean it would fire them faster.

How is having a pistol grip that improves comfort and hip firing not make the weapon easier and more comfortable to use?

How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?

Do both guns have the same exact default trigger pull, or is the ar-15's lighter and easier to fire?

These guns are different enough in actual use to make one more dangerous than the other. They both can kill you dead, but one literally is designed specifically to be deadiler in several ways. It's one of the reasons mass murders keep using it specifically to mas murder people.

Why is it surprising that it's considered deadiler?

[–] Jondar 21 points 7 months ago (2 children)

This picture is often used to draw out all the points you've made, to demonstrate that many people are unfamiliar with many firearms. The Mini-14 in this picture is one available configuration of the rifle. The most basic, simple, low capacity version. However, the Mini-14 is fully capable of using 20 and 30 round magazines, a pistol grip, suppressor, bayonet, and even a folding stock (which the AR-15 can't do).

A better version of this picture uses two models of the Mini-14, illustrating how one is legal in California and the other isn't, even though they're functionally the same rifle. A firearm simply being black does not make it more dangerous. A pistol grip does not make it more dangerous or easier to hip fire for that matter. Any gun is easily hip fired, and I would suggest a non pistol grip rifle or shot gun is more ergonomic to fire from the hip as far as pulling the trigger is concerned.

The real argument should be whether semi auto rifles are more dangerous or not, not if specific semi auto rifles are more dangerous.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] SkyezOpen 9 points 7 months ago (6 children)

How is being less visible at night not make a black gun more dangerous than one with a bright wooden sheen?

You're right. We should regulate black paint just in case someone decides to turn their legitimate wooden rifle into a war machine.

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[–] FlyingSquid 14 points 7 months ago (27 children)

Why’s the one on top “scarier?”

Because of the type of people more likely to buy the one at the top.

I'm not sure why people like you don't understand that. It's not the gun, it's the sort of people buying it.

And if you are an AR-15 owner and don't like who the gun is associated with, I'm sorry. You don't get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.

load more comments (27 replies)
[–] Ledivin 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The study only had 3 categories: no firearms, pistol(s), or an AR-15, so you're literally just ranting at bad survey design.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (20 replies)
[–] [email protected] 19 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The hilarious part of this is that statistically, many Americans have AR-15s and other rifles sitting somewhere within a few hundred yards of them. There are countless millions of them.

This would be like polling people about their fears surrounding theoretical concealed weapons when, statistically, they just got home from the grocery store or gas station and there were probably 10 people there carrying guns without incident, and they just didn't know about it.

[–] Katana314 16 points 7 months ago (11 children)

I may be unaware of the rats living in a small nest inside of a drainspout near me, but that still doesn't mean rats are "okay" or "harmless". So this isn't quite a gotcha about their normality.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] [email protected] 18 points 7 months ago (1 children)

The only righteous abortion is my abortion, and the only safe unsecured AR-15 is my unsecured AR-15.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] RememberTheApollo_ 15 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I don’t necessarily care if my neighbor owns an AR rifle. I do care what kind of person they are if they own one, or other firearms.

Are they one of the crowd that treats firearms with the careless disregard of a fashion accessory? Do they have to accessorized it to the utmost tacticool possible? Do they have a private arsenal? Do they leave it lying around in their home or vehicle, or any other firearm for that matter, unsecured? Do they tie guns to their personal or political identity?

All of these things are negatives of varying severity, especially any failure to secure the guns and tying gun to their identity. Why those? Guns get stolen from homes and vehicles all the time and then are used in crimes while the gun owner washes their hands of the consequences of their lazy storage. Unsecured guns are used in accidental shootings by kids or others. And identity tied to firearms is just an indication of inflexibility and possible political extremism.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] [email protected] 13 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (14 children)

I just came here to say I don't understand this because while these guns are by and large used in mass shootings, handgunss cause far more death.

Handguns are less accurate, and are used far less for hunting or other sport (at least compared to rifles), partially due to their sheer inaccuracy. They are way more likely to be used in a murder, and people are way less likely to take the time to lock them up properly because they want them "at hand."

I'm way more likely to be shot by some dumbfuck with a handgun than be caught up in a mass shooting.

Unpopular opinion: ban handguns

load more comments (14 replies)
[–] Ballistic_86 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Everyone cool with gun rights until you ask if someone they know should have access to guns with little regulation. On the abstract, preserving rights sound good. But when you stop to think of the types of people you know/have met/know about, restricting gun rights feels a bit more logical.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] slickgoat 12 points 7 months ago (4 children)

The comments couldn't get more American if it was a competition on making American commentary.

I understand both side of the argument, but at the same time I get neither. American cultural identity in relation to firearms is unique in the Western world. Guns have transcended rights and wrongs. People hunt. People use guns recreationally. People cosplay warriors. Some people use guns for bad reasons. Most people never cause the slightest harm. But in any event, culturally, guns occupy a political position not usually seen in the first world.

I'm not even sure what I am trying to say? I do know this, the debate will never end because the two different positions are completely contradictory and all compromise is effectively lost. I'd be interested in hearing a solution that both sides could live with. It would be a doozy.

load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›