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.

  • Drusas@kbin.run
    173·
    6 months ago

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

    • tmsbrdrs2@lemmy.world
      517·
      6 months ago

      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@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.

        • 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?

      • IamSparticles@lemmy.zipEnglish
        6·
        6 months ago

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

      • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
        51·
        6 months ago

        “A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” --The full and complete text of the 2nd Amendment.

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          12·
          6 months ago

          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@reddthat.com
            11·
            6 months ago

            “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@lemmy.world
              1·
              6 months ago

              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.