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

https://lemmy.world/post/15202263

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

A recent study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences [https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2311825121] 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.

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.

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.

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

Who's that?

You don’t get to choose how society judges things, whether or not it is fair.

Are you saying that a study with a self-selection bias of participants that specifically use MTurk, that has 3 comparative subjects (no gun, pistol, AR) for comparison is indicative of societal perspective?

You know exactly who I am talking about. You don’t live under a rock, I’m sure. Don’t pretend and play coy. I’m not going to play that game with you.
So now you're going to defend your own ignorant statement with, "I should know better?" You should not make blanket assumptions about who owns what. I think you are living under a rock.

Fine. I’ll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren’t is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?

Whether you think it’s a fair association or not is irrelevant. That’s what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.

Bitch about it all you want, them’s the breaks.

Now, any more silly game-playing you want to do?

Fine. I’ll play your game this once, but do you really need it spelled out to you that the AR-15 and other rifles designed to look like military weapons even though they aren’t is what society associates with right-wing assholes who are ready to shoot up those durn libruls and queers?

I despise games, but I despise ignorant bullshit more. I don't want to play games with you. The AR-15 is a popular choice among rifle owners in the US typically because of the availability of parts and ammo... that's the main reason. It can accommodate both 5.56 and .223, so again, if you're actually keeping one around to protect yourself against ______ (fill in the blank) you'll have a better chance at acquiring ammo.

I'm the polar opposite of a right-wing asshole (the asshole part may still hold), but if more ARs and AR parts are being produced, it's simply a matter of practicality in the long-term.

Whether you think it’s a fair association or not is irrelevant. That’s what a large segment of the population associates that gun with, including many gun owners.

Fair association? What the fuck are you talking about? I could give a fuck about perceptions, but assuming that everyone that owns an AR is a right-winger is dumb. I don't think YOU get to speak for a large segment of the population; you simply speak for yourself.

I can’t help that you don’t like the general public perception of people who own the gun that you own. It doesn’t change that perception and being rude about it also doesn’t help.

It’s also not about what I personally believe, so please stop suggesting it is.

You need to stop assuming what the general public perceives. You are misapplying your personal perception.

Assuming?

Let’s start with the Republican-sponsored act to make the AR-15 the national gun of the U.S. - www.congress.gov/bill/…/cosponsors

Then there are the AR-15 pins Republican politicians wear- time.com/6253690/ar-15-pins-congress/

And the AR-15 giveaway fundraisers Republicans hold- washingtonpost.com/…/virginia-write-in-race-gun-g…

Here are a whole bunch of Republicans begging the army to keep selling AR-15 ammo on the market- thereload.com/republicans-urge-army-to-continue-s…

Here’s Lindsay Graham saying he has an AR-15 to defend himself from gangs- cbsnews.com/…/lindsey-graham-ar-15-protect-home-g…

And we can finish with this article about how the AR-15 has become the symbol of the right- newsweek.com/how-ar-15-became-symbol-us-right-179…

So no, I don’t think I’m assuming anything.

Yes, what you are doing is making an assumption. Again, you do not speak on behalf of "the general public." You speak on behalf of a portion of the general public and your entire premise is based on a no true Scotsman fallacy.

I gave you a huge mountain of evidence. Claims made with evidence are not assumptions. Why are you being so dishonest? All I can think is you didn’t even bother to view those links. The right has undeniably made the AR-15 their symbol. I have shown that very clearly. Because they have made it their symbol, the general public associates them with it. That’s not an assumption, that’s how it works when someone makes something their symbol.

Am I making an assumption when I think the general public associates red baseball caps with MAGA Trumpers? No, because that’s one of their symbols.

Again, I understand that you do not like it that a gun you own is viewed as a right-wing thing by people, but blame the right.

You provided several links (several of which were not relevant) that support the idea that a portion of the population (not the whole of a population) believes something. I am having a hard time figuring out why you are unable to differentiate a % of something from the whole of something.

I see, you think “general population” means “everyone in the entire country.” It does not. You also seem to think that symbols have no meaning, which is weird.

I am a portion of the “general public” that you’re completely ignoring

You clearly aren’t.

“General population” is typically in reference to prison populations; but the term can be used when referencing a full sample size, E.G. 70% of the general population associates red caps with MAGA.
Ah, so you do know what it means. Then I’m not sure why you suggested it meant 100% of the population.
You’re clearly still misunderstanding and misusing the term. “General population” is 100% of itself.

Everything is 100% of itself.

A pear is 100% of itself. Even if you eat part of it, it’s still 100% pear.

You’re almost there…

Now when you say “a pear” you’re not taking about portions of the pear, you’re talking about the whole thing.

So when you say “general population…” without qualifying the specific portion you’re referring to… go ahead, I’ll let you say it…

Yes, I am referring to 100% of the people to whom I am referring. I’m not sure why you think that is a great revelation. I’m talking to 100% of you right now.
100% of me is a % of the general public. Thus, the general public does not agree that all AR-15 owners are conservative dickbags.
So you’re saying that if I claim “the general public likes chocolate” and you personally don’t like chocolate, it isn’t true?

Correct.

If you want to say “there’s a percentage of the general population that likes chocolate,” that would be a true statement; but by the same account, it also means “there is a percentage of the general population that does not like chocolate.” The former implies the latter, and when it breaks down like that, you’re really not saying fuck-all.

Provide some percentages.

So you do think “general public” means “100% of the population.”

Good luck getting the rest of the world to agree with you on that. That’s certainly not what I meant.

What’s the % of the public you need in order to qualify usage of the statement “general public?”

What part of “that’s certainly not what I meant” is unclear to you?

Or are you claiming that you know what I meant better than I do?

What did you mean?
I think it’s a little late to be asking me what I meant at this point since you were so sure you knew up until now.