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.

  • dch82
    32 months ago
    link
    fedilink

    Being a British person, can they just ban guns already? Gun corporations don’t count as people.

    • Drusas
      162 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Against the Constitution, so no, they cannot. It would require amending the Constitution first.

      • tmsbrdrs2
        -132 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        The Constitution says nothing about AR weaponry. It actually doesn’t even say every single person should be allowed to purchase and keep a firearm

        • Jimmybander
          112 months ago
          link

          “Bear Arms” is simply too vague. I feel like I should be able to have a SAM installation according to that.

          • DdCno1
            22 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            The “well-regulated militia” part afterwards isn’t vague, but gets ignored by self-proclaimed “originalists”.

            • Narauko
              42 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              That is because the “well regulated militia” part is neither the subject of the sentence, nor a qualifier for the rest of the sentence. It’s pretty straight forward English sentence structure. It explains a primary reason why the individual right to keep and bear arms “shall not be infringed” is important, and like a comment line in computer code it doesn’t “do” anything to the rest of the program.

              The federalist papers and the militia acts back up that “originalist” interpretation.

            • mctoasterson
              22 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              Correct that it isn’t vague. It means “well functioning” as they would have used it. A contemporary would have said a clock that keeps time accurately is “well-regulated”. It doesn’t refer to bureaucratic regulation in the slightest, as you can compare how those topics were talked about in the same documents of the constitutional convention and the Federalist Papers etc. and the verbiage used is completely different.

              People in those days used flowery language such as Washington’s quote “Let us raise a standard to which the wise and honest can repair. He isn’t talking about wrenching a bicycle.

              It also takes deliberate ignorance to read a list of 10 individual rights and construe that one in particular is somehow collectivized and handcuffed by a footnote about its justification.

          • dual_sport_dork
            12 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Sign me up! Can I get one that’s sized to work on starlings? Or maybe a little tiny one that’ll do mosquitos

          • bitwaba
            12 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            I’m not sure if I’ve got this right, but from the rest of the buzz on the internet I think the 2nd amendment means I’m allowed to keep bear arms to make women feel safe?

        • IamSparticles
          cake
          English
          62 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          What is literally written in the constitution isn’t always as important as how those words have been interpreted by congress and the courts.

          • Maggoty
            -32 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            Who’s the people? Is it individuals? Is it the town council?

            That’s been interpreted 10 different ways over the last 200 years.

            • mctoasterson
              02 months ago
              link
              fedilink

              “Collective rights” are obviously and effectively useless. Imagine someone claiming you must be silenced but your First Amendment rights weren’t violated because somebody else somewhere gets to speak after he did the appropriate paperwork. The Bill of Rights has been construed to broadly protect individual rights for this reason. It takes mental gymnastics to apply different reasoning to certain of the 10 listed items in order to align it to a desired political outcome.

              • Maggoty
                12 months ago
                link
                fedilink

                You just described that actual state of the first amendment. You don’t need to imagine that because that’s exactly what’s happening. Complete with police brutality and arrests to discourage future speech.

    • Meeech
      -22 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Ahh you see, in America corporations do count as people!

      Seriously though, as someone who has been personally affected by a US mass shooting, the ban can’t come fast enough but I know it’ll never happen without a massive overhaul of our political system which I don’t see happening anytime soon

    • Maggoty
      -22 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      Possible, but not any time soon. We’d need massive campaigns about it to shift public opinion and then a very high bar to repeal an amendment. It doesn’t help that many Americans have deified the first 10 amendments.

      (Even as we don’t actually enjoy the rights)

    • AA5B
      -52 months ago
      edit-2
      2 months ago
      link
      fedilink

      The worst part is we’ve been heading backwards in the last few years, with the conservative Supreme Court invalidating state level restrictions

      The second amendments does not say there can be no restrictions. For example we used to restrict concealed carry to those who do the appropriate paperwork and demonstrate sufficient need. Now anyone can. Why the fuck are you carrying a concealed weapon in a city? There’s no place you can use it without endangering innocent people there’s just no excuse. Your rights to look edgy and feel in control should not trump my right to not be killed

      Or this guy in Florida is a textbook example of irrationality and not responsible enough to own a weapon. There should have been no bail, no release, and no more right to bear arms. I hope the Uber guy sues him out of his home and life savings, because that seems to be the only justice

      • ArcaneSlime
        52 months ago
        link
        fedilink

        For example we used to restrict concealed carry to those who do the appropriate paperwork and demonstrate sufficient need.

        *And it is still this way in about 1/2 of the states.

        Now anyone can.

        *In about 1/2 of the states, unless of course they are a prohibited possessor.

        Just trying to be accurate, no pun intended.

        • AA5B
          12 months ago
          link
          fedilink

          https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States

          In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, that the Second Amendment does protect “an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home. The case struck down New York’s strict law requiring people to show “proper cause” in order to get a concealed weapons permit, and could affect similar laws in other states such as California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Rhode Island.[70] Shortly after the Supreme Court ruling, the attorney generals of each of California,[71] Hawaii (concealed-carry licenses only),[72] Maryland,[73] Massachusetts,[74] New Jersey,[75] and Rhode Island (permits issued by municipalities only)[76] issued guidance that their “proper cause” or similar requirements would no longer be enforced.

          • ArcaneSlime
            12 months ago
            link
            fedilink

            This just means that one doesn’t have to show “proper cause” to get a permit. For instance NYC (which was the case in question) which only gave permits to those who could show “proper cause” which ended up being only rich and/or famous people and politicians who are better than their lowly serfs constituents. Still have to get the permit in NYC, they just can’t deny you because “you aren’t important enough to need it” anymore.