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.
I’m fine with it as long as they’re properly trained and respect it.
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.
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.
That’s a feature, not a bug. The point is you want to protect rights fro the tyranny of the majority.
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.
It didn’t really give the southern states an ‘advantage’; it mostly meant that the north couldn’t steamroll them. But the south also couldn’t force their will on the north. It forced the states to have some kind of consensus, rather than allowing the more populous states to govern without the consent of the less populous states.
It’s… Complicated.
I want individual rights to be respected. To that end, I have a problem with the way a lot of states treat e.g. LGBTQ people. But I’m also distrustful of allowing all/most governance to be from a single, centralized organization that isn’t very responsive or responsible.
It didn’t really give the southern states an ‘advantage’; it mostly meant that the north couldn’t steamroll them.
I think that’s just a semantic dispute waiting to happen… Plus, I’d hardly call wanting to end slavery “steam rolling” the south.
But the south also couldn’t force their will on the north. It forced the states to have some kind of consensus,
Maybe not in the time it was written, but I’m pretty sure we’re dealing with the south forcing their opinions on people presently.
rather than allowing the more populous states to govern without the consent of the less populous states.
And that may have made sense when we were mostly just a loose confederation… as an actual country it’s done nothing but create a tyranny of the minority.
But I’m also distrustful of allowing all/most governance to be from a single, centralized organization that isn’t very responsive or responsible.
I could say the same thing about states rights bullshit. That loose confederations just create an environment where there is no overall protection for minority views, and that state governments are too individualistic and incompetent to respond to crises like COVID. And that they are highly irresponsible and unresponsive unless there’s a federal mandate, or it entises their lust for bigotry.
That’s called democracy. You have to accept democratic decisions even if you don’t like them. I think you people are extremely pathetic for preferring fascist dictatorship to democracy just so can keep stroking your fucking guns.
There are supposed to be fundamental rights that remain protected even when one falls into a minority. The tyranny of the majority includes silencing the temporarily minority opposition party, for example. Or minority ethnic and religious groups who are demonized by a slim majority.
And that isn’t happening in the current US system?
Of course it is. And guess what? It’s wrong in that case too.
Freedom of assembly means, yes, to freedom to protest things that the majority in the country are okay with.
I take it you are only against it when it happens to the wrong people.
So when America democratically decides to end free speech for palestine supporters you’ll just lay down and take it?
They already did that. Everyone protesting safely is a progressive idea with broad support that’s being withheld. And the argument that we can’t grant basic rights because there might be a tyranny of the majority is illogical and morally bankrupt.
You know what stops cops from overreacting at protests? It begins with R and ends with ifles.
Their comment has nothing to do with guns.
Suuuuure. Whenever US “conservatives” talk about their rights being taken away, that is always what they mean.
LOL. I’m not even remotely a conservative. By every political measure, I’m a social libertarian, or an anarchist.
Taking rights away only benefits authoritarians. And there are a whooooooole lot of authoritarians in both major US parties.
Another one that people are talking about right now is reproductive rights; I think women should have them. Lots of old white dudes around me (and, TBH, a lot of the women too, because they drink the Flavor-Aid) think women should not have that right.
If you went back 50 or 60 years, you’d be looking at rights to protest (which are on the chopping block now, too), and rights to freedom from religious tyranny (which, again, is also a problem now, albeit mostly in flyover states).
Rights are never very popular when they’re being exercised by minority groups.
If we’re going to accept the concept of rights in the first place, then we also have to say that the majority can’t take those rights away from the minority when a particular right isn’t popular anymore.
That and their right to force us all into following the rules of their religion.
Tyranny of the Majority is the concept.
Oh yes we need to protect the rights of (checks notes) religious people to oppress us all.
Yup definitely in danger of a tyranny of the majority.
Edit, looking down thread you’re not here in good faith. You say we can’t have progressive ideas with broad support because tyranny of the majority but you use those very same ideas as examples of things that might be crushed by a tyranny of the majority. Let’s be real the stuff we can’t vote out because of this system is the right of rich white people to oppress minorities. The right of police to execute people. The right of corporations to abuse their workers. No one in the majority is out there cheering the arrest of protestors or the implementation of Christian Sharia law.
You don’t believe that I’m here in good faith because I believe in individual liberties…?
That’s certainly a take.
But you don’t. Based on what you’ve said you favor the rights of capitalists and corporations over individuals.
The primary problem with implementing those policies that people want are in the details. Everyone wants [thing], but have widely differing views on what that means. Or they have concerns, some of which are valid, that get in the way of implementing the change.
Most people want universal background checks and for people who are likely to be violent to not have guns. But many also don’t want registration to be tracked because when it has been teacked it has been made publically available. Others don’t want to have to pay for the background check to loan their gun to a friend for hunting.
That is of course before differences in who should be paying for the checks and how to track a check was made without that list being made public.
It is like saying everyone likes fruit, but we have to establish a list of acceptable fruit that will never cover the differences in what kinds of fruit people like. Have fun passing that law.
That would be the task of a democratic process, to figure out those details, if only there was one.
If only we had a functioning democracy!
The filibuster is the tool used most often to avoid even having those discussions in congress. The House won’t spend time on legislation that will just be filibustered in the Senate.
deleted by creator
removed by mod
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.
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.
I have a problem with being compared to vermin for the rifle that sits unloaded in a safe until I take it to the range
In the comparison above, the rifles would be the rats… not you.
I haven’t seen a single rifle say it was offended by that statement.
While it sounds like you safely own a firearm, letting you do that means we let mentally ill people, irresponsible parents, and whoever feels like also have access.
Sorry to say, but I would take your guns away from you 1000x if it meant taking them away from people who cannot own them safely.
You’ll never get the chance.
I have a problem with living near a AR-15 owner and rolling the dice about how honestly responsible every member of their household is, but it seems like neither of us is getting a simple solution.
Every parent of every school shooter would also claim to be a responsible gun owner. Who wouldn’t?
Yea I really don’t care if you’re “rolling the dice.” Laughable hyperbole. Most people are demonstrably unsafe drivers, but I don’t revel in imaginary victimhood and try to take people’s cars away. As a great man once said, “Life sucks, get a fucking helmet.” Or in your case, a plate carrier. I’m going to keep stacking ammo and guns and not shoot anyone, not because murder is wrong, but out of spite for anti-gunners. Anyway Trump sucks. Hail Satan.
“Not caring” about other people’s safety is definitely characteristic of gun owners, so full consistency there.
You should get out and meet people and see the full spectrum there is, instead of wasting your razor sharp wits on the internet. I think you’d be surprised to find the cartoonish spectres you conjure to rail against are hard to find.
Same with the fucken “Most people are demonstrably unsafe drivers”. Shit REEKS of self aggrandizement, but then again most conservatives seem to anymore.
Not a conservative, but nice try
Being a British person, can they just ban guns already? Gun corporations don’t count as people.
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…
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
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.
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.
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 serfsconstituents. Still have to get the permit in NYC, they just can’t deny you because “you aren’t important enough to need it” anymore.Why do you need concealed carry? “To shoot up a school”. Ok
Try that lol see what happens.
Against the Constitution, so no, they cannot. It would require amending the Constitution first.
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
“Bear Arms” is simply too vague. I feel like I should be able to have a SAM installation according to that.
The “well-regulated militia” part afterwards isn’t vague, but gets ignored by self-proclaimed “originalists”.
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.
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.
Sign me up! Can I get one that’s sized to work on starlings? Or maybe a little tiny one that’ll do mosquitos…
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?
removed by mod
Who’s the people? Is it individuals? Is it the town council?
That’s been interpreted 10 different ways over the last 200 years.
“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.
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.
What is literally written in the constitution isn’t always as important as how those words have been interpreted by congress and the courts.
Unfortunately that leads to a sliding scale. One court says you can’t remove something because it’s in the Constitution, the next court allows that same entry to be bypassed by interpreting it in a way that isn’t in the Constitution, the third interprets it completely differently.
You can come and take em…
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)
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.
You’ve succinctly defined the problem, and the only solution is a cultural shift away from the norm. Hopefully that shift will be peaceful, which will most likely only happen if it’s gradual.
the only solution is a cultural shift
The culture is always shifting. I would not say it has shifted in the direction of safety. On the one hand, you have horders who believe its their civil right to stuff their house with tank shells and miniguns and you can’t tell them what to do. On the other, you’ve got police who will start firing blindly in all directions when an acorn drops, because they’re so terrified of anyone else owning a gun.
Together, these seem to suggest a cultural shift towards “You’re allowed to own a gun but if you make me scared I’m allowed to shoot you” as a middle ground.
In all honesty if someone has tank shells and a minigun they probably have a shit tonne of permits. Either that or they dont have any dogs so the ATF doesnt care.
Yeah, the culture in this case is a glacier. The cultural shift is going to leave gouges in the earth.
removed by mod
I agree that it doesn’t make much statistical sense to feel safer with a hand gun owning neighbor than a rifle owning neighbor, which is what the survey seems to say.
I think it’s really telling us something about the branding of this particular firearm (and its stereotypical owner).
As a gun owning liberal, what about AR-10s?
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.
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.
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!
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
Red owners tend to drive their cars faster and … Tend to get more tickets.
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
removed by mod
It literally means ArmaLite Rifle after its original designer and manufacturer. At least verify your information prior to claiming it as fact.
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.
Wouldn’t that make it an ALR and not a AR?
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
They’re just semi auto rifles. The tech is more than 100 years old at this point.
There is no functional difference between an AR and any other Semi Auto rifle. Including the ones used by hunters and sports shooters.
Your title left out the whole “and neighbors who store their firearms unsafely”.
I would wager that the poll would have come out differently had those two vastly diverse topics been separated.
I have an AR-15. It’s usually in it’s case. (I don’t have children.) I know plenty of people that have AR-15s, and a few weirdos that prefer AKs (but they’re finally seeing the light now that cheap Russian ammo isn’t cheap at all any more). It’s just such a non-issue for me. My biggest issue is that I would prefer that the people I’m around are safe, as in, have good muzzle awareness, excellent trigger discipline, etc. But the gun itself? I’m fine with AR-15s.
If they have something like an L85A1, anything by KelTec, or an AK, I know that they have deeply suspect judgement, and can not be trusted in any matters of taste.
Funny, in modern countries we just think you’re all fucking cowards no matter what
Why?
People who have guns -
-
Hunters ✅
-
Soldiers ✅
-
Farmers ✅
-
Cowards who are protecting themselves from -
-
Other cowards
I had a guy pull a knife on me in the walmart parking lot, apr 2020. He decided to leave instead of stab me, and would you like to know why? Because in your summation “I’m a coward” who decided that instead of being stabbed I would reach for my firearm. Call me a coward all you want but I got my groceries and he probably found some more courageous victim, I’ll call that a wash.
There are also gun collectors and target shooters. Nothing wrong with either hobby. There are even Olympic target shooting events.
-
I’m a leftist Canadian trade unionist who owns guns. Please explain what part of this makes me a coward.
Was always fun to me as a Russian that, if you’re not in a military, you’ll have easier time to get your hands on an AK in America rather than Russia itself :D
But that’s for the better - gun ownership is cancer, in my opinion.
Good news then! In Russia, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and the rights of the criminally accused are also banned!
Do guns help Americans get their freedoms? Is this country a beacon of hope? Isn’t the US slowly following Russia’s guidebooks on slowly stripping freedoms away?
For as long as you are scattered and divided, no gun is gonna help you change the game of politics. If you are united, you can overthrow your government without a single bullet.
Most of European countries, for example, have much stricter gun control. And if there’s a place of democracy, Europe is the destination to watch.
Do guns help Americans get their freedoms?
They sure as fuck did, yeah! :D Just like they’re helping Ukranians keep their country right now. They’re certainly helping the rebels in Myanmar.
Is this country a beacon of hope?
It depends on who you ask. At the moment, people still tend to choose the US over pretty much any other country when they’re trying to emigrate and they have a real choice. So for people outside the US? Probably. For people inside the US? I think that we can, and should, do better.
Isn’t the US slowly following Russia’s guidebooks on slowly stripping freedoms away?
Unfortunately, yes. And the people need to resist that.
If you are united, you can overthrow your government without a single bullet.
That’s a nice theory but it rests on two presuppositions. First, it assumes that the US would ever be united and speak with one voice. Given how many people here identify with their oppressors rather than their fellow oppressed, that seems extremely unlikely. (Look at the number of people willing to vote for Trump three times now.) Second, it rests on the idea that governance requires the consent of the governed, and, well, I’m pretty sure that’s not the case.
On the other hand, armed groups of civilians that are acting peacefully tend to get the kid glove treatment from cops. Cops tend to want to have the advantage of numbers and the ability to use force before they instigate conflict; when they don’t have it, they suddenly remember how to de-escalate. So far, that’s mostly been used by the right, but the left is finally starting to pick up on that shit, which terrifies the chuds. Why do you think that you’ve seen armed groups of civilians protecting drag queens at story time, or protecting people trying to hand out food to the homeless?
And if there’s a place of democracy, Europe is the destination to watch.
I note that the far-right is making significant inroads into European politics.
That’s a fair answer, I appreciate the depth you went into.
I think US is the center of immigration due to high economic potential first and foremost. Building careers in the richest country in the world sounds like an attractive option. Especially for young people who consider burdens like healthcare and home ownership to be less significant. Barely so for democracy outside of proclaimed “land of the free”. But I may be wrong.
If US will not speak with one voice, no amount of arms is gonna help. And I’d much rather live in a country where people don’t have access to guns than in a country where left and right are pointing muzzles at each other (not to mention American left and right are just different sorts of right to the outside world, but that’s a story for another day).
On far-right in Europe - true on your side.
I think you’re right about the perceptions of economic freedoms, yeah. Which is kinda wild, given that most countries in the EU fare much better overall in cost-of-living versus salaries. So it’s like playing roulette; they’re betting that they can win big, instead of being just another chump that loses money to the house.
And, TBH, I think that if the US had the same kind of criminal justice reform and social safety networks that you see in most of the EU (and I’m not including Great Britain in this; they really suck in a lot of ways, which is intentional on the part of UK conservatives), I think that you’d see a lot less violent crime in general, and a definitely lower murder rate.
And I’d much rather live in a country where people don’t have access to guns than in a country where left and right are pointing muzzles at each other
I don’t know where you live. But you gotta understand a couple of things about the US. First, the US is big. All of Europe–including Russia–is 3.9M square miles. The continental US (not including Hawai’i and Alaska) is 3.1M square miles. All of Europe has a population of 745M people, and all of the US has a population of about 335M. So the US is a very large country, and statistically it’s very sparsely populated. I live in a semi-rural area; if shit happens, it’s going to take emergency services–cops, fire department, ambulance, whatever–a minimum of 20 minutes to show up. But in the US, the cops have no legal obligation to protect you in any way; there is no criminal or civil liability if any police officer or agency refuses to do their job. On top of that, cops are far, far more likely than not to be on the political right.
So what does this mean?
You need to be able and willing to protect yourself, and take care of yourself, because the government here can’t, and won’t. Especially if you aren’t white and christian.
You can say, “I don’t want to live in a society that’s armed”, but that’s a very privileged stance to take, given that most of the people in the US have to be ready to fend for themselves, and hope that the veneer of civility doesn’t fail.
I’m from, well, Russia :D With half the population over almost double the area, and quite some threats, too.
And yeah, we have guns banned here.
Not that we don’t have issue with police/other emergency services arriving to remote areas in time, nor are we a thriving peaceful nice democracy, but I certainly don’t expect less gun control to improve the situation here - and I don’t think it’s optimal for the US, either.
Individually, you may benefit from holding a gun. But collectively, there will be plenty of people putting those guns to a bad use, or just overreact in self-defense.
anything by keltec
You say that, but let’s be honest: keltec is a mullet company. They make an array of monotonous pocket pistols, and freaky shit. Nothing in between. You know anybody who has a fun keltec is down for a good time.
I feel like KelTec’s motto should be, “All The Cocaine In The US Comes Through Florida”.
A gun company by Florida Man, for Florida Man.
This is why I use the AR-10, it’s much safer, it’s 5 AR’s fewer than the AR-15
The bigger bullet means it’s easier to avoid.
I’m more comfortable around the guns I’ve seen in documentaries like Contra and Bad Dudes, with the flashing, softball-sized bullets that travel at like six inches per second
Everyone knows Time Crisis has the most realistic bullet travel physics.
LOL for a second I legit thought “The Contras? They mostly used AK-47s we sold them, right?”
All the other kids with the pumped up kicks You’d better run, better run, outrun my gun
So a good bit cheaper, too, then?
Cries in 308 pricing
I’m playing Fallout 4 and my favorite weapon uses .308 bullets, I run out all the time and then have to use other weapons that just don’t feel as good. I spend way too much time going to shops to buy all they have and collecting resources and crafting them just to have less than enough.
It seems the real world has a similar problem.
Is that the LMG? I like that one too.
.308 pricing reasonable on a per-bear-stopping basis, but makes a mess of dinner.
Insert Padme meme here*
One I see hunters wield and the other I have NEVER seen within range of a deer. Could happen, just not something I have seen in 40 years of hunting.
Do you go out to watch deer hunters often, or just when it’s on TV?
Every season
I get your point, but you are completely ignoring the handgun hunters out there. There was even a magazine devoted to it when magazines were still a thing. A simple internet search turns a bunch of sites devoted to it.
https://www.americanhunter.org/content/a-beginner-s-guide-to-handgun-hunting/
https://www.petersenshunting.com/editorial/handgun-hunt-for-whitetail-deer/466615
https://www.buckmasters.com/Magazines/Buckmasters/Articles/ID/7675/Handgunning-for-Whitetails
The 1st paragraph explains… “Not unlike hunting with archery tackle, the pursuit requires relentless practice, patience and persistence to succeed; however, it’s especially gratifying when you do” just like there is a difference between hunting AZ coues and OH white tail.
AR-10s have been gaining popularity for deer hunting in my area recently.
The AR-15 is designed for hunting humans, not game.
Am I reading this data sheet correctly? Did they seriously use a data set of 2100 people and call that “widespread”?
A random sample of 2100 people is often sufficient to get a statistical significant result for a population of around 50 million with a 5% margin of error.
I’d maybe add a few thousand more for a study that represents the entire USA, but 2100 isn’t a small sample size.
