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.

  • Jimmybander@champserver.net
    121·
    6 months ago

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

    • DdCno1@kbin.social
      85·
      6 months ago

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

      • Narauko@lemmy.world
        4·
        6 months ago

        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@reddthat.com
        2·
        6 months ago

        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.

    • bitwaba@lemmy.world
      32·
      6 months ago

      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?