1y ago

Study reveals "widespread, bipartisan aversion" to neighbors owning AR-15 rifles

www.psypost.org Study reveals "widespread, bipartisan aversion" to neighbors owning AR-15 rifles

A new study has found that Americans, including traditionally pro-gun groups, are averse to living near AR-15 owners and neighbors who store guns insecurely. This consensus highlights potential local-level agreement on gun safety practices.

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.

You're viewing a single thread.

334 comments

Because there is no actual need for such a weapon. Nobody outside the military needs a spraynpray gun. Yeah they look sexy to some, i get that, but i can do as much "damage" more accurately with my plainjane hunting rifle.
- How in the world is an AR a spray n pray gun? Barrels shorter than 16" require a tax stamp and approval. An AR can be built to be pretty damn accurate. Do you just not like that it's semi auto?
  Idk why people go after the AR platform when you can go buy a Barrett .50 cal anti materiel rifle in 49 states, and there's plenty of less scary shaped semi auto rifles out there.
  
  Millions of M1 Carbines were widely and affordably available for years before the AR-15 was a thing. It, like the AR-15, is also an easily-handled magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle firing intermediate cartridges, and was intended for military service.
  Virtually no school shootings occurred until Columbine (and the media coverage surrounding it, and the miserable state of American society) set off the waves of shootings that continues to this day. It's worth noting they didn't use either AR-15s or M1 Carbines, that didn't become common until later.
  If the AR-15 is the cause of this because it is an easily-handled magazine-fed semi-automatic rifle firing intermediate cartridges, how do people explain the near complete lack of mass shootings despite the wide adoption of the M1 Carbine in a time when gun ownership was even less restrictive?
  Not a hard enough question? Ok try this one: actual machine guns used to be widely available and much more affordable than they are today. Why is there relatively little recorded violence with them?
  
  I think the answer is marketing. Much like mp3 players existed before the iPod, sometimes something just takes off and centers on a particular product that maybe has a bit more glitz, or better marketing. I think the idea of legislating specific products is stupid.
  
  They go after this platform, because it's a favorite of mass shooters. You know this.
  
  Toyota Camrys are also a favorite of car crashers, never you mind that they're one of the most owned cars, correlation=causation dammit!
  
  Red owners tend to drive their cars faster and ...... Tend to get more tickets.
  
  And wouldnt you know it, BECAUSE cars can do a shitload of damage in the wrong hands, they require years of training and certification to be able to legally operate.
  
  I didn't have to do years of training. I took a 2 week driver's ed course and took a test. Had my provisional as soon as I turned 15.
  But on the other side to get a hunting license when I was a kid I had to do a state run hunter safety class to learn about gun safety.
  
  I dont know the Details for the States, but for Canada, the first Test you pass gets you a Learners, in which you arent allowed to drive without a full licence Driver present, and you're only allowed to take your restricted New Driver's license after a year of having an L and not getting any tickets, and then a year after that you can finally get an unrestricted license. Multiple years. But I guess if the states is stupid with itd guns, it'd make sense its stupid with its cars too
  
  We let any idiot with a pulse drive because in most of rural America you'd starve to death without a car
  
  Ok what does the AR name mean? Assault Rifle? Assault rifles are typically spraynpray by design. Thats their main attraction and the main reason they are targetted
  
  It literally means ArmaLite Rifle after its original designer and manufacturer. At least verify your information prior to claiming it as fact.
  
  Wouldn't that make it an ALR and not a AR?
  
  Ok. still it is cosmetically an assault rifle. Colt owns the name now. The ar-15 is the army's m-16
  
  I don't understand how cosmetics are relevant to its function. Like many other rifles, an AR-15 is usually semi-automatic, is that the issue you have with it?
  
  Do you really need 30 rounds in one? More rounds is more targets
  
  Do you really need a fast car or nice clothes? The bus and a burlap sack will work just fine.
  
  This doesn't answer my question, you're deflecting, however it also accepts 10 or 20 round magazines just fine. Personally I would say I like the option, my preference is 20rds, it makes it a little easier when shooting from a resting position.
  
  This is factually incorrect. Don't take this as a judgement on you or your position, just that you should be approaching any side from a factually sound place.
  "AR" in "AR-15" stands for ArmaLite Rifle. ArmaLite is the firearms manufacturer where Eugene Stoner was working when he designed the rifle.
  Assault rifles, and most other weapons capable of automatic fire, are generally not intended to be used as "spray 'n pray" weapons. That is generally reserved for stationary machine guns (think the beach on D-Day).
  Assault rifles generally are classified as weapons that fire an intermediary cartridge that are capable of select-fire. Meaning that they fire cartridges with size and energy in between centerfire pistol (ex. 9x19mm) and full-power rifle (ex. .30-06 Springfield AKA 7.62x73mm) and the operator may select between multiple modes of fire. Usually these are semi-automatic (one round per trigger pull), fully-automatic (continues to fire rounds while trigger is held down) and/or burst-fire (two to three rounds per trigger pull).
  The use of fully-automatic fire on modern assault rifles is extremely limited, with standard issue military rifles in the US military having the fire mode completely absent until the recent switch from the M4 (semi-auto and burst-fire only) to the M4A1 (semi-auto and full-auto). Tactically, fully-automatic fire is usually limited in use to room clearing in close combat and for suppressing fire (keeping the enemy combatants from leaving cover) to allow the squad to break contact and retreat to safety. This is reflected in the types of units that have been consistently issued assault rifles capable of full-auto; generally special forces and reconnaissance units that may be deployed outside of range of friendly support.
  Full-auto in an assault rifle is simply not very useful in modern military roles. A standard issue magazine holds 30 rounds. An M4A1 in full-auto fires about 800 rounds-per-minute. That means that it takes just a bit less than 2.5 seconds to empty an entire magazine, putting the soldier in the vulnerable position of needing to reload. In most situations, it's far better to employee a squad automatic weapon, which is generally fed by a belt with much higher capacity, allowing sustained suppressing fire to allow allies to maneuver.
  All of that said, I do, personally, agree that civilians (including police forces) ought not to have military-like firearms primarily intended for shooting humans. But that is because I am mostly a pacifist. The ArmaLite Rifle (AR-15) is NOT a select-fire rifle but a semi-auto one. It can, however, be modified into one (illegally) and uses the same rounds and accessories. To me, that makes it "military-like" and should likely be heavily regulated (but won't be).
  TL;DR - Whichever side you are arguing, do it with facts.
  
  Got it already thanks
- There is no functional difference between an AR and any other Semi Auto rifle. Including the ones used by hunters and sports shooters.
- Same, we own a shotgun for bird hunting that doubles as a potential home defense weapon. I don't want to turn a home invader into Swiss cheese, I want them to GTFO and the sound of racking a shotgun is unmistakable. Practically no one breaking into houses is doing it for funsies, I don't want to kill them.
  
  The sound of a charging handle racking isn't much different and the exact same effect could be achieved, fwiw. Also studies have shown that 5.56 or .223 HP penetrate less through drywall than buckshot, and bird can be much less effective than your grandpa thinks. Remember Dick Cheyney's "hunting trip?"
  Though the AR is useless for the birds.
  
  When I had a shotgun because I lived in a bad part of town the loads went Bird, Bird, intermediate. The idea is for them to leave and if they won't then kill them.
- They're just semi auto rifles. The tech is more than 100 years old at this point.

334 comments