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.

  • AA5B@lemmy.world
    27·
    7 months ago

    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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      5·
      7 months ago

      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@lemmy.world
        1·
        7 months ago

        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@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          1·
          7 months ago

          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.